Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of  Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1939.

Accounts ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1939, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1940; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of that year; with a copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon." — [Captain Crook shank.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BRITISH DPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to continue British diplomatic representation at Budapest?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: What is the advantage in being represented in a country which, either willingly or unwillingly, forms part of the enemy machinery?

Mr. Butler: Each country must be considered on its merits. There are, in this case, more advantages than disadvantages.

Miss Rathbone: Does that apply also to Belgrade?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (ADMINISTRATION, KULANGSU).

Mr. Hannah asked: the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the fresh demands presented by the Japanese to the British chairman of the Municipal Council of Kulangsu, Amoy; and whether any steps have been taken to support the foreign administration of Kulangsu against demands calculated to subject the settlement of Kulangsu to Japanese domination?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese Consul-General at Amoy presented four requests to the Kulangsu Municipal Council on 20th January. Three of these presented no difficulty, but the fourth was for the immediate appointment of six Japanese sergeants in the police force. In consequence, the three non-Japanese members of the Council resigned on 23rd January, leaving it without a quorum. Since then the functions of the Council have been carried on by the Consular body. Negotiations have been proceeding between the Japanese Consul-General and His Majesty's Consul-General, in his capacity of senior Consul.

Mr. Hannah: Is not the present position extremely unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position at Tangier with reference to the ejection of the Mendoub and the resumption by the German authorities of his residence, the former German Consulate; and whether this step by the Spanish Government is in accordance with the recent interim agreement?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the action of the Spanish authorities in Tangier in ejecting the representative of the Sultan of Morocco and installing the German Consulate in the Mendoubia; and whether this has been done in conformity with the recent provisional agreement concluded between Spain and Great Britain?

Mr. Butler: On 16th March the Mendoub was informed by the Spanish Governor that a Dahir had been promulgated by the Khalifa of the Spanish Zone,


suspending his functions and appointing a successor to act as Pasha, with the functions, but without the title, of Mendoub. On 17th March, a German Consul was installed in the Mendoub's residence, which had originally been the German Consulate-General. The Mendoub was the personal representative in Tangier of the Sultan of Morocco; these developments, therefore, primarily concern the French and Spanish Governments. Since no direct British interest is involved, the action in question cannot be regarded as inconsistent with the recent provisional arrangement between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government. But, as I stated on 26th February last, the rights of third parties under the relevant international instruments have been reserved under the recent interim agreement about Tangier.

Mr. Mander: Is not the presence of a German Consul and his satellites in Tangier a British interest? Will the right hon. Gentleman not do everything possible to prevent the infiltration of Germans into Tangier in this way?

Mr. Butler: Naturally, we are very interested; but I am informed that there is nothing in the Tangier Convention to prevent the establishment of consulates of foreign Powers in Tangier.

Mr. Wedgwood: Can it be honestly said that the Government are doing everything possible to prevent this, when they are not using their bargaining power of preventing food from entering Spain?

Mr. Butler: We do everything that lies in our power.

Mr. Cocks: Was not a provisional agreement made, stabilising the position in Tangier pending a final settlement? Does not this foreshadow the eventual annexation of Tangier?

Mr. Butler: As I said in my original answer, to which I would refer the hon. Member, this is a matter which primarily affects the French and Spanish Governments, and, accordingly, the action in question cannot be regarded as inconsistent with the interim agreement.

Mr. Mander: Are the Germans to be allowed a free run in Tangier? That is the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA (EMPEROR'S PROCLAMATION).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will circulate in the Official Report the text of the Proclamations issued by the Emperor of Ethiopia, and distributed by the Royal Air Force, in which the Emperor urges his subjects to forget the cruelties committed by the Italians in Ethiopia, and to refrain from all acts of vengeance which might embitter future relations between the peoples of Ethiopia and Italy?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I am arranging for this to be done.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will His Majesty's Government take the opportunity of publicly expressing appreciation of the generous and statesmanlike policy followed by our Ally, the Emperor, in view of the many cruelties committed by the Italians against his subjects?

Mr. Butler: If hon. Members read the Proclamation, I think they will endorse the view of the Government that it is a valuable document, which should be read with all the consideration that it deserves.

Mr. McGovern: May we take it that the previous decision of the Government to recognise the King of Italy as Emperor of Ethiopia has now been cancelled?

Mr. Butler: It has been cancelled for some time.

The text of the Proclamation issued by the Emperor to his people on 24th July, 1940, is as follows: —
Ethiopia stretches out her Hands unto God."

HAILE SELASSIE I,

THE ELECT OF GOD, EMPEROR OF ETHIOPIA.

TO THE ETHIOPIAN PEOPLE, THE AUTHORITIES AND THE WARRIORS.

"In the previous Proclamation I informed you of my return and that we have obtained the assistance of Great Britain to liberate our country. You will get the arms of which you are in so much need. The powerful British Air Force is destroying the fortifications of the enemy.

"In the Second Proclamation, I have notified the Italians who are in Ethiopia and who have now been completely encircled that they should deliver themselves up to our authorities so as to save themselves from useless destruction. Therefore, I charge you solemnly


to receive kindly and to protect those Italians who may surrender with or without their arms. Do not retaliate for the cruelty which they have inflicted on our people, but show yourselves honourable and humane soldiers.

"Do not forget that when the valiant Ethiopians made the Italians captive at the Battle of Adowa they handed them to their Emperor without doing them any harm, thus earning for Ethiopia honour and a good name. "17th Hamlé, in the Year of Grace 1932. (24th July, 1940.)"

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (SITUATION).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position in the Balkans?

Mr. Butler: Yesterday, Yugoslavia acceded to the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan. According to reports, the instrument of accession was accompanied by two Notes addressed by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Yugoslav Prime Minister. In the first of these Notes, the German Government reaffirmed their determination to respect at all times the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. The second stated that during the war the Governments of the Axis Powers will not make any demands on Yugoslavia to allow the passage or the transit of troops through Yugoslav territory.
When it appeared that the action which has just been taken by Yugoslavia was imminent, His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade addressed a Note to the Yugoslav Government. In this Note His Majesty's Government indicated that they had been led emphatically to believe that no action could or would be taken by that Government capable of harming or of making serious difficulties for the nations upholding the cause which, they were assured, the people of Yugoslavia regarded as their own. His Majesty's Government had, therefore, been shocked to learn that Yugoslavia now suddenly contemplated the signature of an agreement by which she not only abandoned her neutral attitude, but apparently entered the very system of Great Britain's enemies. If such an agreement were concluded, His Majesty's Government would be bound to point out that, in the light of recent history, the Yugoslav people were almost certain to be drawn more deeply into that system as time went on.
The history of the past 18 months has shown how little Germany scruples to honour the assurances which she gives. The Yugoslav Government must be well aware that, in adhering to the Tripartite Pact, they have opened the way to Germany's familiar methods of infiltration and intimidation, which would gradually imperil the free existence of Yugoslavia as an independent State. The responsibility for the results of their present decision rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Yugoslav Government. The House will understand that I cannot at present take the matter any further.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not time that the noble Yugoslav people had a new Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it a fact that the Yugoslav Government, by a very strict censorship and by wireless propaganda, have endeavoured to prevent their people knowing the truth about the international situation?

Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that the Yugoslav people as a whole appreciate the facts, as I have stated them, and the true position.

Mr. Mander: Could not the British Note have been handed in at an earlier date, in view of the known imminence of the Agreement?

Mr. Butler: I should like to take this opportunity of saying that His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, handled this matter with the utmost discretion and with great skill, and I should like to congratulate him on the manner in which he has done it.

Mr. Riley: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Pact between Yugoslavia and Germany will not permit the transit of military supplies through Yugoslav territory—apart from the question of troops?

Mr. Butler: On the reports that we have received, I can go no further than to state that the Yugoslav Government appear to have acceded to the Tripartite Pact; and the only extra documents are two Notes addressed by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Yugoslav Prime Minister, but that does not cover the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: Were not the Yugoslav Government faced with the same problem as faced other Balkan Governments—whether to arm the workers for the defence of the country, or to betray the country?

Mr. Martin: Are the nationals of the countries adhering to the Tripartite Pact to be treated like other neutrals in this country?

Mr. Butler: I think we must leave the interpretation and implications of the Tripartite Pact to those who have already read the documents which have been described.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (EMPLOYES' DEBTS).

Mr. Denman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that the Ministry's refusal to disclose the addresses of employés who have been billeted in the provinces and subsequently left the district and failed to pay their bills prevents traders from obtaining money due to them; and will he cease to shelter debtors and to create this additional hardship on traders already hard hit by necessary Government restrictions?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): The Ministry is always prepared to deliver to the addressee communications addressed to one of its officers, but, in accordance with the practice followed by Government Departments generally, the Ministry does not regard itself as free to disclose the private addresses of its staff, except in cases where a court has adjudged payments to be made. If, on inquiry, it appears that a member of the Department is seeking dishonourably to avoid his legal obligations, disciplinary action is taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings what consideration is being given to an increase in the permissible height of buildings in urban areas?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): My hon. Friend's Question refers to a particular aspect of redevelopment, which will be considered in the review of the whole subject.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind particularly that if we are to have wider streets and open areas in our cities, the only way in which the local authorities can maintain their present rateable value is by going high?

Mr. Hicks: That will be borne in mind.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman see that his Department is not rushed into committing itself in favour of sky-scrapers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PROJECTS, LIMITED.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the financial standing of British Projects, Limited, was investigated prior to their being placed on the Admiralty list; and what experience they had of carrying out the type of work involved in the contract awarded to them?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on nth July to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), of which I am sending him a copy. The firm's previous experience consisted chiefly of building construction with a small quantity of civil engineering work. The greater part of the Admiralty work entrusted to the firm comprised a large building and two housing schemes, with the necessary attendant water, gas mains and roads and drainage. The remainder of the work consisted of concrete runways and earthworks, of a simple character, involving no difficulty, and for their proper execution the firm's previous experience was considered adequate.

Mr. Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not this firm was recommended to his Department by any Members of this House?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir. We made the usual inquiries as to the capabilities and the financial state of the firm, and these were all satisfactory, but I am not aware that any recommendations came from Members of Parliament.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Was this particular contract submitted to tender, and, if so, did any local organisation which could have done this job receive the opportunity of tendering?

Sir V. Warrender: These contracts were put out to tender. This firm was one of the contractors on the Admiralty list, and it was invited to tender along with other firms.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why payment to British Projects, Limited, was delayed; and whether he is aware that this firm had obtained substantial credits on the grounds that they had obtained Admiralty contracts and that they have now gone into bankruptcy?

Sir V. Warrender: I am unable to accept the implication in the first part of the Question. British Projects were liberally treated in regard to payments. It was only when financial difficulties arose that the Admiralty became aware that the firm had obtained substantial credits from suppliers and sub-contractors. It is not unusual for firms to do this, and however regrettable the result, it cannot be regarded as the responsibility of the Admiralty, who took the usual precautions to establish the firm's bona fides. The firm is now in voluntary liquidation.

Mr. Edwards: Is it the fact that this was the first contract that this firm had received from the Admiralty and that its failure to carry out this contract in a proper way is an indication that it had had no previous experience?

Sir V. Warrender: This was the first Admiralty contract that it had secured, but in the previous two years it had executed no less than 13 contracts, the value of which was in excess of the seven contracts which it was subsequently awarded by the Admiralty.

Mr. Lipson: When substantial payments are made by the Admiralty, are steps taken to protect sub-contractors from financial loss?

Sir V. Warrender: That is another question, and I should like to see it on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT, EAST AFRICA).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies

whether consideration has been given to any proposal to employ Italian prisoners in Africa on public works, roads and improvements?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Yes, Sir. A proposal to employ Italian prisoners of war on the improvement of roads in East Africa is now being considered by the local Governments, the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, and the War Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether steps are being taken to secure increased local consumption of the small West African cocoa crop due about Tune by the Africans themselves, who use little of this food, by teaching them to grind the cocoa in their own homes, thus enabling the 20,000,000 people of Nigeria to consume their surplus cocoa themselves and thereby mitigate the widespread existence of leprosy and other deficiency diseases by improving the native food supply; and whether the heavy Gold Coast crop could be sold in surrounding countries?

Mr. George Hall: Experiments are being made in West Africa with the simple preparation of cocoa beans for local African consumption, but it is still too early to say whether a taste can be created for the resultant product. As regards neighbouring countries, only the Union of South Africa at present imports cocoa in raw form, and her whole requirements are being supplied from West Africa.

Mr. Adams: I take it that the Minister will agree on the urgency of raising the nutritional standards in that part of the world?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend give any estimate as to the possible amount of cocoa that could be consumed by West African natives if their tastes were modified?

Mr. Hall: That is purely hypothetical, but I would say that the African taste for cocoa is not yet developed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (DETENTIONS).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies the nationality and connections of the two women and one man who have been detained in Trinidad on a charge of engaging in anti-war propaganda?

Mr. George Hall: All three are British subjects. The two women were born in Eire and hold Eire passports. The man was born in Trinidad.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ORDINANCE.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government is satisfied with the draft Workmen's Compensation Ordinance in Nigeria and when is it proposed to enact it; and whether, on enactment, immediate steps will be taken to bring the Ordinance into operation?

Mr. George Hall: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, the Governor of Nigeria informed my Noble Friend last month that the Bill was presented to the Legislature in January and was referred to a Select Committee, and that he had every hope that it would be possible to enact this legislation at the next meeting of the Legislative Council. Further inquiry regarding the position is being made. With regard to the concluding part of the Question, assuming that the Bill is enacted at the time mentioned by the Governor, it is anticipated that it should be possible to bring the Ordinance into operation early next year.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very long time that this Ordinance has been before the Nigerian Government, will every effort be made to speed up the enactment of the Bill, and also to see that when the Ordinance is put upon the Statute Book it is operated, because there is considerable discussion about delaying tactics?

Mr. Hall: Every effort will be made to see that the Ordinance is carried out.

POLICE INSPECTORS.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of African dissatisfaction with the appointment of British inspectors

of police in Nigeria, it is proposed in future to afford Africans the opportunity of appointment as inspectors?

Mr. George Hall: In general the opportunities for replacing British by African staff have recently increased. I am not fully informed of the position as regards the superior posts in the Nigerian Police; but I am asking the Governor for a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (INTERNEES).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), how many British subjects of Jewish faith and German origin have been interned in Jamaica; and whether anything is being done to give internees the same chance of release that they would have if interned in this country;
(2), why it has been found necessary to detain Dr. Stamm and his wife in Jamaica seeing that they are Jews and British subjects; and will he release them without delay so as to enable Dr. Stamm to take up useful work in Jamaica?

Mr. George Hall: Twelve British subjects of German origin have been detained under the Defence Regulations in Jamaica, and evidence is available indicating that of this number three men and three women are of Jewish extraction, including Dr. Stamm and his wife. All these persons were detained last summer because the Governor of Jamaica was satisfied that their detention was necessary at that time. The question was discussed with the Governor during his recent visit to this country, and he agreed to review all these cases personally on his return to the Colony with a view to considering whether any of the persons concerned could properly be released. The Governor's report is now awaited.

Mr. Wedgwood: While I thank my hon. Friend for the answer, will he let the Governor know that this question has been raised; and does the Governor realise that the Jews are friendly, while other Germans may not be?

Mr. Hall: The Governor's attention, of course, is called to any Question put in this House.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the principles of the White Paper with regard to internee; in


Great Britain are carried out in Jamaica and other Colonies?

Mr. Hall: That question has been put to the Governors of all Colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (ORDINANCES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the Undesirable Publications Ordinance, Sedition Ordinance, Deportation of British Subjects Ordinance and Assessors Ordinance, now operating in Sierra Leone Protectorate, complaints are general of the suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of the Press and freedom of meeting and of an unnecessary curfew order, and that there has been established an internment camp to which are committed, amongst others, natives who have called attention to abuses of the law; whether the situation in this Colony is receiving attention; and with what results?

Mr. George Hall: As Freetown is an important defended port, special precautions are necessary there and in its neighbourhood. I am not, however, aware of there being any general complaints of the kind described. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any alleged abuses of the law, I will see that they are investigated.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister take steps to obtain from the Governor the details of the situation there, which is extremely bad from the point of view of discontent with the oppressive measures imposed?

Mr. Hall: I can but repeat that we have received no complaints from anyone in this territory, and if my hon. Friend has any complaints, perhaps he will send them on to the Colonial Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

DOCKS CLEARANCE, GLASGOW.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient motor transport to clear the docks at Glasgow, so that ships are not delayed in the discharge of their cargoes?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I am satisfied that there is at present no shortage of road vehicles for this purpose.

Mr. Higgs: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether there is a shortage of road vehicles at Liverpool?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is entirely a different question.

Sir C. MacAndrew: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent lack of warehouse accommodation in the Glasgow area is retarding the clearance of docks and delaying the turn round of ships?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Lack of storage accommodation in the Glasgow area is not at present retarding quay clearance or delaying the turn-round of ships; but the present reserve is insufficient to meet possible demands, and further suitable accommodation is being sought. An officer was recently appointed in South-West Scotland to see that the best use was made of suitable premises.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that there is no shortage of motor vehicles, warehouses or storage accommodation and that Glasgow dockers are putting in a hard day's work, clearing as quickly as possible, can the Minister say what is holding up the turn-round of ships?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: A lot of "things besides unloading and loading come into the holding-up of ships. I am responsible only for that side of the picture.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister investigate the statements which have been made that private railway agreements with the docks are very heavily retarding the unloading and return of ships?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I can answer that straight away. That is not so.

Mr. A. Edwards: Can the Minister say to what extent the Customs authorities are holding things up?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I do not think that is for me to answer.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make further inquiries, as his answers do not tally with what shipowners say about that area?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: When the Minister says it is not for him to answer questions of this kind, and when we are informed by other Ministers that it is not for them to answer, can we be told who is to answer?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: If the hon. Member raises a Question about the Customs, no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reply.

Mr. Shinwell: But when there is delay in clearing docks, and when everybody knows there is serious congestion at the principal docks, why do Ministers constantly "pass the buck" from one to another? Cannot we get some clear explanation of the position? Who is responsible? Is it the Government?

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it more important for the Minister to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Customs Department than it is to inform the House of an important reason why the turn-round of ships is delayed?

Mr. Buchanan: Is not the Minister aware that the position in Glasgow is well known to any ordinary observer? Will he not take some interest in this matter himself and put it right?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The position in Glasgow is not at all bad. It is probably as good as in any other of the Western ports. I refuse to be responsible for answering for the whole policy of the Government. I am in charge of my Department only, and if hon. Members want to question the whole position of the docks in a general sense, they must address a Question to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister deny categorically that there is a private agreement between the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R. at the Shieldhall Docks?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that it is alleged that we are working on an entirely peace-time basis?

Mr. De la Bére: Is it deliberate that we should be eternally deceived?

SEED POTATOES, SCOTLAND (RAILWAY FACILITIES)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that potato growers in England are in dire need of seed from Scotland, and that they are

prevented from getting that seed, for land already prepared, by the refusal of railway companies in Scotland to accept consignments of such seed potatoes from Scotland; and whether he will take the matter up with the railway companies?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am informed that in view of the large tonnage of seed potatoes to be transported from Scotland to England this year and the pressure on the railway facilities, arrangements were made in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food for seed potatoes consigned to certain counties in England and Wales to be sent by coastal shipping. Consequently an embargo was placed upon the forwarding by rail from Scotland of seed potatoes for these destinations.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that there is some doubt as to the amount of coastwise shipping available? Will he make inquiries to ascertain whether there is any shipping and into the fact that at least two great companies are quite willing to extend consignments of seed potatoes but that other railways have refused?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will make further inquiries, but I understand from my right hon. Friend who is in charge of shipping that there is no trouble about taking seed potatoes. On the rail side, we are carrying over 2,000 tons a night.

Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister make further inquiries into the west coast shipping?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Certainly.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish and London and North Eastern Railway companies in Scotland have been instructed to refuse consignments of seed potatoes for certain counties in England; and under what circumstances, and by what authority, this has been done?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on a similar Question on this subject which has been given to-day by my right --hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

GERMAN BROADCASTS.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Minister of Information whether, when the German broadcasts quote the words of British subjects and name them in those broadcasts, he will send a transcript of the broadcast to the persons named?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir. I am arranging that the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's Question shall be adopted so far as it is practicable.

BROADCASTS (RELIGIOUS TALKS AND POLITICS).

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson asked: the Minister of Information whether he is aware of the injury to our united war effort arising out of the propagation on the British Broadcasting Corporation, in war-time, of highly controversial political doctrines which many men and women are unwilling to receive; whether he is aware of the growing misuse for this purpose of the religious talks, preceding the 8 a.m. news, by anonymous speakers claiming the support of high authority in the churches for their views; and whether he will take power to control this abuse of public confidence?

Mr. Cooper: It is the policy of the B.B.C. to permit a fair balance in the free expression of all opinions except those which are opposed to the national war effort. Steps have recently been taken to ensure that religious talks receive the same general scrutiny as is applied to other broadcasts.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Will the Minister, in the interest of fixing responsibility, take powers to prevent anonymity in broadcasts?

Mr. Cooper: That is another question. On certain occasions it might be desirable that a speaker should be known, and in others it might be desirable that he should not be known, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister say what are the qualifications of the gentlemen who go over the religious broadcasts?

Mr. Cooper: The people looking over them have hitherto been looking over other broadcasts. It is not considered

desirable that politics should enter into religious broadcasts, and the point of the supervision is to ensure that they should not.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two of these broadcasts have advocated two political schemes which have been condemned by annual meetings of the British Labour party?

Mr. Silverman: Will the Minister assure the House that the B.B.C. will do nothing to frustrate the general desire in this country that the world after the war shall not return to the parlous state that it was in before?

B.B.C. BOARD OF GOVERNORS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Information what steps he proposes to take to reconstitute the British Broad casting Corporation Board of Governors?

Mr. Cooper: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter, which is under immediate consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement next week.

PRESS CENSORSHIP.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Information whether, after Press material it is proposed to publish has been submitted to a Service censor for voluntary censorship, and a request made that such matter should not be published on the ground of its potential value to the enemy, the Government have taken power compulsorily to prevent publication?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the Minister consider the desirability of taking these powers if information available to the enemy has been published, in view of the present great difficulty of obtaining sufficient facts and evidence for a conviction in the courts?

Mr. Cooper: I have already given very careful consideration in this matter, and I have found how great the difficulties would be in enforcing any compulsory system. I think that far less good will would be obtained from the Press under a compulsory system. On the whole, it has been decided to maintain the present voluntary system, which has worked very well.

MINISTRY PREMISES (RECREATION).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Minister of Information why dances are permitted every Saturday in the building of the Ministry of Information?

Mr. Cooper: Because it is the policy of the public service to give reasonable facilities for recreation on official premises for those who under present conditions must remain on the premises over a long period such as a week-end, provided the facilities do not interfere with hours of duty or involve a charge on public funds.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am all for dances occasionally to help forget the war, but would it not be possible for these dances to be held outside the building? In view of the fact that there are men and women supposed to be working day and night at the Ministry of Information, is it very conducive to good work and concentration that a dance, where there is liquor, should be in progress in the same building?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member that dances should be held outside the building is very useful. The only reason for the dances being held in the building is that people are compelled to remain in the building.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these dances cost nothing at all to the State, that in anvcase the lights are on, that the orchestra is provided by a gramophone, and that the questioner is either ill-informed or very mean?

Mr. McGovern: Can the Minister state whether pacifists are allowed to dance?

SCRIPT FOR BROADCAST.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Information whether facilities will be afforded for a five-minute broadcast, with full responsibility as to authorship, of the script submitted to the British Broadcasting Corporation, on Tuesday, 25th March, 1941, a copy of which has been forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Hastings?

Mr. Cooper: It is for the B.B.C. to decide whom they will invite to broadcast, but I shall be happy to use my good offices with the Corporation on behalf of my hon. Friend

BROADCASTS TO YUGOSLAVIA.

Mr. Bartlett: (By Private Notice) asked the Minister of Information whether, in order to keep the Yugoslav people informed of developments and to encourage their resistance to their Government's policy of surrender, the B.B.C. will temporarily cut down other European broadcasts and devote several hours a day to broadcasts in Serbo-Croatian?

Mr. Cooper: The B.B.C. have already increased their Serbo-Croat time period from 45 to 70 minutes, and a further 10 minutes are about to be added. This will provide six regular periods of news and talk, which is the same amount as is given in the Home Service. The number of available Serbo-Croat experts in England is limited, and it is more a question of lack of staff than of available time; it must, however, also be remembered that any alteration of the European schedule, for however short a time, inevitably leads to a loss of regular listeners in other countries. I am inquiring whether it may be possible to extend still further the time devoted to broadcasts to Jugoslavia.

Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that in all these other countries the assurance that for the time being, in the hope of saving one more country from coming under Hitler, we have cut down the time normally devoted to them will be readily accepted, and that there is a considerable number of Serbo-Croats in this country who have put in for jobs at the B.B.C. in the past and who could be got at this moment?

Mr. Cooper: The suggestion will be borne in mind. We are doing all we can to find the necessary number of people who can speak the language. The Secretary of State for India, who includes a knowledge of this language among his many attainments, is broadcasting to the Serbo-Croat people to-night.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the transmissions to which he has referred are on short waves only and that short-wave receivers in Serbia are practically non-existent; and that owing to the failure of the Government to establish medium-wave stations in Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar, no medium-wave transmissions from this country ever reach that part of the world? We have, therefore, left an open field to Germany to enforce the Axis views on the


whole of the Balkans. Is it impossible for the Government to establish stations in Cyprus such as I recommended eight months ago in a speech in this House?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that we are steadily doing all in our power to increase the number of transmitters, both in this country and in other parts of the Empire, but it is not always desirable to say where they are and from what wavelength they are going to work. I am satisfied that while the number of short-wave receiving sets in Serbia is limited, the broadcasts we have delivered are widely listened to and are still being listened to by the Serbo-Croat people.

Captain Plugge: Is it not a fact that under present conditions the whole policy of broadcasting facilities in this country is virtually in the hands of the engineering department of the B.B.C. and that when my right hon. Friend makes good suggestions for expansion they are turned down by the engineering department of the B.B.C. as impossible and that he is obliged to take their decision as final? Has he not some other body to which he can refer for an independent opinion on such a vital subject, and is it fair that the policy of expansion of such an important war weapon as broadcasting should be left in the hands of a B.B.C. department and not really in the hands of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member's question arises out of the Question put by special leave of Mr. Deputy-Speaker as one of immediate and urgent interest. If I were to answer it at any length, the House would be compelled to take part in a Debate on broadcasting.

Mr. de Rothschild: In view of the difficulty that may exist with regard to receiving sets in Serbia, will my right hon. Friend urge the Greeks and also Ankara to broadcast in Serbo-Croat in order that the news from those countries could be heard in Yugoslavia and in order that the great effect which news from those countries would have would penetrate to the people of that country?

Mr. Cooper: Those countries can broadcast to Yugoslavia, and we are able also to broadcast to Yugoslavia from Cairo and other places.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As a considerable number of people in Yugoslavia speak Albanian, will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the Albanian transmissions in the next few days?

Captain Plugge: With regard to the last reply of my right hon. Friend about the difficulties of obtaining transmitters, after my visit to America eight months ago I informed him that it would have been possible to establish two high-power medium-wave stations immediately in Cyprus, which would have covered the Balkans.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot debate this matter on a Private Notice Question.

CHEAP POST-CARDS (BOMBED AREAS).

Mr. Emery: asked the Postmaster- General whether he will consider the sale of post-cards to the public at a cheap rate, similar to the field post-cards used by men in the Forces, by which people in bombed areas may be able to communicate quickly with friends and relatives, thus avoiding the present blocking of telegraph and telephone facilities in these areas?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Cards like field post-cards bearing alternative printed phrases would be admissible at 1d. printed paper rate of postage and it is open to private enterprise to provide such cards. The question of providing such cards already stamped for sale at post offices has previously been considered. I understand that there are various difficulties and objections, but I will again look into the question and write to my honourable Friend.

WAR WORK (HOUSE OCCUPIERS' PROTECTION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Attorney- General whether his attention has been drawn to a recent county court decision which held that a man conscripted into an industry could not receive the same protection respecting the occupation of a house as a conscripted Service man; and whether, in view of this anomaly, he will take steps to secure that whether a man serves in the Armed Forces or is transferred from his normal work to work of


national importance he will receive the same protection respecting house occupation?

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the case to which my hon. Friend refers related to an occupier who was not a tenant in the legal sense and that the court did not decide that such an occupier would, if he had been a person conscripted into the Armed Forces, have enjoyed a protection which is not available to persons conscripted into industry. I am not aware of any legislation now in force which makes such a discrimination.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether anomalies of this character do not exist, and, if they do, will he consider removing them?

Sir W. Jowitt: I am not aware of any discrimination existing in the law to-day between the two sets of cases.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the extreme urgency of the need to increase the benefits payable under the National Health Insurance, in particular, sickness, maternity and disablement benefits; by what amounts it is intended to increase the benefits; and can he make a statement on the matter in view of the urgency?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) yesterday.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health in what way grants are made to the local authorities because of the high rates; and what amount has been granted?

Miss Horsbrugh: Local authorities to whom financial assistance is afforded to enable them to maintain essential services receive, as and when required, monthly advances based on estimates of cash

receipts and payments. Except in special circumstances 75 per cent. of each advance is treated as grant, and the remaining 25 per cent. as an interest-free advance, in respect of which the Government retains the right to call for repayment after the war in the light of the financial circumstances then obtaining. The amount advanced to date is £3,859,720.

Mr. Thorne: Would there be any difficulty in publishing in the Official Report the names of the local authorities which receive the money?

Miss Horsbrugh: I must have notice of that question.

COLLIERY CANTEENS.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines to what extent canteens, either mobile or stationary, have been provided at the collieries throughout Great Britain; and whether the use made of such canteens is satisfactory?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): Canteen buildings for the service of light refreshments have been provided by the Miners' Welfare Fund at about 220 out of about 1,000 collieries employing more than 50 workers. These are the only colliery canteens of which I have particulars. With very few exceptions they are in satisfactory use. I may add that I am at present in consultation with the Minister of Food regarding special supplies of food to miners which may involve the use of some form of canteen at the other collieries.

INDIA (WAR EFFORT).

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government to make a further attempt to bring about a fuller and more complete co-operation between the various important sections of opinion in India in order to increase the war effort in that country?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Government, I need hardly say, are most anxious to see such co-operation and have constantly in view the desirability of furthering it, so far as any action on their part can contribute to that end.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the statements of leading statesmen in India, and in view of the fact that as the war nears the East the problem becomes more vital, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to leave the matter where it is at present?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir; I hope not.

Mr. Graham White: Has the right hon. Gentleman any recent information with regard to a change of view on the part of the Moslem League?

Mr. Amery: I have no information except a paragraph I have seen in the Press.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not true that all Indians whose co-operation is really of value are already co-operating in the war effort?

Mr. Macdonald: Is it not true that there are imprisoned in India many men whose services would be of great value to the war effort?

Mr. Amery: I hope to have the support of all Indians.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider releasing those Indians who are in prison?

BRITISH ARMY.

CO-OPERATION WITH ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that there is now complete co-ordination between the Army and Air Force in respect of potential campaigning; and whether this precludes or includes the use of light aeroplanes by the Army for field operational work?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bére) on 12th November last, of which I am sending him a copy. The use of all types of aeroplanes in support of military operations has been fully con-considered.

GUN SITES.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject of the destruction of a large number

of fir trees adjoining the gun site, particulars of which were furnished to his Department on 2nd December, 1940; and also whether he is in a position to supply information in respect of the supply of beds for the gun crew on the same site, particulars of which were sent to him on 31st December, 1940?

Mr. Law: As regards the first part of the Question, the fir trees to which my hon. Friend refers were cut down in order to secure a proper field of fire for the guns which could not be sited elsewhere in the vicinity owing to the nature of the ground. With regard to the second part, it was decided, in view of the temporary shortage of beds, to give troops sleeping in accommodation with concrete or stone floors priority over those sleeping on wooden floors.

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement about the field of fire is obviously without validity to anyone who has been there, and further, with regard to the beds, as this site has been in operation since August, 1939, why are not the men provided with beds? Why was it that when a particular gun crew were moved, they had to take away three beds for 15 men and the other crew, when they came in, bring 15 beds with them? Does my hon. Friend really say that after 17 months of war the War Office are incapable of providing a sufficient number of beds?

Mr, Law: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question, while I have no doubt that his opinion even on matters which are purely military matters is of considerable value, I think that constitutionally we are bound to accept the opinion of our military advisers on strictly military points. With regard to the question of beds, as my hon. Friend knows, it is a fact that there is a shortage. It is regrettable, and the shortage is being repaired as quickly as possible.

Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Office of Works cancelled a contract for 500,000 beds in 1939? Is he further aware that, although I have tried for four months to get information about the field of fire, up to now three of my letters have not been answered?

Mr. Law: I am aware of the cancellation of the contract. The explanation is a simple one. It was because in practice it was found to be impossible to fit the soldiers into the beds, as the contract provided for the supply of beds for evacuated children.

Sir H. Williams: In view of that, can my hon. Friend say why the War Office took over 500,000 beds that were of no use to them?

Mr. Law: I have no doubt I could say why if in fact they had done so. They took over the contract, and as soon as they found what the beds were, they terminated the contract.

ARMED FORCES (LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the negotiations which have been proceeding between the War Office and the insurance companies in regard to the premiums payable on life insurance policies by members of the Home Guard; and whether he can say what is the policy of the insurance companies in the matter of premiums payable by policy-holders who are members of the Naval, Military and Air Forces generally?

Mr. Law: As the answer is somewhat lengthy, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:
The position of members of the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Crown holding policies of assurance on their lives, issued before the present war became imminent, has been under consideration. Many of these policies were issued free of all restrictions as to occupation or residence and in these cases, of course, no question arises of any restriction of benefits or payment of any extra premium. Some policies were issued, however, expressly excluding particular risks, for example, participation in Naval, Military or Air service without payment of additional premium or adjustment of benefits. However, for such policies, issued on the lives of civilians who have joined for service for the war

only, the offices in general are as a concession at present paying benefits in full without requiring payment of extra premium. It is understood that they hope to continue this concession throughout the war. The concession does not necessarily apply to certain special types of policies, for example, assurances involving benefits of a temporary nature, contingent assurances, deferred assurances, or where a large sum is assured on an individual life. Nor does it apply in a few cases where, although the life assured was a civilian when the policy was affected, a special clause was included to cover exceptional circumstances.

Where a policy containing a war service clause provides that an extra premium will be quoted for the complete waiver of the clause the offices feel that if asked to do so they must quote such premium to give the assured a contractual right instead of the concession.

The special position of the Home Guard has been the subject of full discussion with the Life Offices' Association, the Associated Scottish Life Offices, the Industrial Life Offices' Association, the National Conference of Friendly Societies and the offices particularly concerned, and it has now been agreed that in the case of the Home Guard for all types of pre-war life policies which contain a war service clause consent will be given by offices to service in the United Kingdom in the Home Guard without requiring a policy-holder to pay an additional premium and without restriction of benefits, so long as the Home Guard remains as at present constituted as regards service in the United Kingdom and the service being voluntary and unpaid, the offices having the right to withdraw the concession after a reasonable period of public notice and alter prior consultation, as the case may require, with the War Office, the Board of Trade and the Industrial Assurance Commissioner, who is also the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. There is, in fact, no intention of changing the constitution of the Home Guard. It is understood that the offices intend if at all possible to continue this concession for the duration of the war although they cannot commit themselves to this, if circumstances should change materially.

This statement applies only to life assurance benefits and not to any accident


benefits whether given by separate contracts or embodied in a life assurance contract.

Registered friendly societies affiliated to the National Conference of Friendly Societies are not excluding liability for any payments due at death in respect of members serving with the Forces, who joined those Societies prior to the outbreak of war. They also propose not to differentiate in their treatment of members serving with the Home Guard. In both cases it is hoped to continue these payments for the duration of the war, though here again the position will require to be reviewed if existing circumstances materially alter. No change will be made without notice being given to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and to the War Office.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir John Jarvis: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 10 officers have been removed from Oflag VII. C/H and sent to a Stalag camp in Posen 21/10; and whether he knows of any reason for this transfer to an inferior camp?

Mr. Law: Inquiries are being made to ascertain the reason for this transfer.

Sir J. Jarvis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued good treatment of German prisoners in this country depends upon reciprocity?

FOOD SUPPLIES.

MINISTERIAL CONTROL.

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to greater co-ordination, and in view of the already close interlocking of the two Departments, he will reconsider the creation of a Ministry of Agriculture and Food to take the place of the two separate Ministries which now exist?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to him on this subject on 18th February last.

Mr. De la Bére: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the vital importance of the unification of these two Departments with a view to organising the part which

agriculture shall play in the national economy? Will not the Government really give proper consideration to these matters since the part agriculture plays in the national economy is one of the most important questions that we shall have to face immediately the war is ended—and now too? May I have an Answer? My right hon. Friend does not seem to be giving us any enlightenment on these matters.

SHAMPOOING (EGGS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the information sent to him by the hon. Member for Leigh, to the effect that eggs are used at a West End hairdresser's for shampoo, as many as four at one shampoo; and will he have inquiries made, and take steps to put a stop to this waste of food?

Major Lloyd George: Although I do not wish to say anything that might prejudice consideration of this matter by the courts, I consider that the use of fresh eggs at the present time for the purpose of shampoos would be an offence against the waste of food Order. Inquiries are being made into the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take some steps to prevent this going on. Statements in the paper of this kind cause people to wonder what is to happen when they are told to curtail their food?

Major Lloyd George: I will do all 1 possibly can to prevent such waste.

Mr. Davidson: What can you do?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member will realise that the shampooed and the shampooer are both committing an offence under the Defence Regulations.

RETAILERS (SURPLUS PRESERVES).

Mr. Levy: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether retailers will distribute any surplus of jam, marmalade or syrup, on the basis of first come, first served, without regard to quantity; and, if not, what instructions have been given to retailers regarding the disposal of any such surplus?

Major Lloyd George: There will in fact be a very limited supply of preserves


available above the minimum ration. During the first two months of this experimental scheme retailers are advised in their own interests not to sell any quantity other than the minimum since their replacement will be confined to their minimum requirements with a small addition for this first period only, to be used as a reserve against the needs of unregistered customers. Any surplus that may then be available is to be distributed among registered customers at the discretion of the retailer.

Mr. Levy: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give instructions that primary consideration shall be shown to people with large families?

Major Lloyd George: I shall have to look into that.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

RUSSIAN SCRAP IRON.

Mr. M. Samuel: asked the Minister of Supply what dealings he has had with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a view to the purchase of scrap iron for this country?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): There have been no such dealings.

Mr. Samuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Russia is full of scrap iron?

STRAW (PAPER-MAKING).

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Minister of Supply what applications have been made to his Department for a supply of steel for the purpose of erecting new plant for the manufacture of paper from straw from firms in England; whether he is aware that paper manufacturing firms in Scotland have the necessary plant but are unable to use it to its full capacity, mainly due to the high price of straw and shortage of supplies; and what steps he proposes to take to employ this plant?

Sir A. Duncan: Applications for steel to extend existing plant to produce paper from straw have been granted to several mills both in England and in Scotland. I am aware that a shortage of straw has affected the production of some mills in Scotland; but I hope that as a result of recent agreements between farmers and

papermakers on the price of straw, and as more straw becomes available, all paper mills which can use straw will be able to make full use of their capacity.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Minister of Supply, whether he is aware that large quantities of straw for paper-making purposes are being loaded at railway depots in the South of Scotland and carried to East and South England, while the same material for the same purpose is being carried from the South and West of England to paper manufacturers in Scotland; and whether he will examine this waste of railway transport service?

Sir A. Duncan: My information is that no paper-making straw has been taken from the South of Scotland to England, but that small quantities have been taken from England to Scotland because of a shortage of straw for paper-making in Scotland. Every effort will be made to reduce transport of paper-making straw to the minimum.

ADVERTISEMENTS (USE OF PAPER).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the waste of paper at the present time due to irrelevant competitive advertisements of rival brands of drink and food; and whether, in view of the fact that such advertisements can no longer be justified from an economic or national standpoint, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir A. Duncan: The use of paper for advertising is already severely curtailed by restrictions relating to posters, circulars, and other forms of advertising. I am considering proposals for the extension of these restrictions.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there is no point now in advertising the consumption of alcoholic liquor, seeing that its alleged value is already known? Therefore, under the circumstances, will he not take action to see that these unnecessary advertisements no longer appear?

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that Members of Parliament had sent to them last week a useless calendar, which they were asked to return by post? Will he take steps to see that these useless things which no one wants are not sent?

Sir A. Duncan: I am afraid it is hardly the function of the Minister of Supply to distinguish between advertisements of one kind and another. We are endeavouring to do it along the lines of restricting the amount of paper which may be used.

Mr. Buchanan: Am I to understand from that reply that no one can stop an obviously stupid and useless waste in time of war?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the Minister take steps to check waste in Government Departments?

Mr. Sorensen: From the standpoint of national economy, is not this wastage of paper quite unnecessary and unjustifiable?

Sir A. Duncan: It is for that reason that restriction is severely applied to the amount of paper which can be used in certain directions.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK AND EGGS.

Mr. Rickards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give the producers' and retail prices of milk and eggs in 1913, and February, 1941, showing the percentage increase in each case and the normal average increased costs of production for both milk and eggs?

Major Lloyd George: I doubt whether it would be possible to supply information relating to prices and costs of production of milk and eggs in 1913 which would be comparable with the information now available. I will, however, do what I can to meet my hon. Friend's request and will communicate the information to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps were taken by the milk traders, who gave the assurance that normal domestic supplies of milk might be reduced by approximately one seventh, to seek the opinion of their employés, as to the practicability of operating the proposed scheme; and, in particular, whether the dairy roundsmen's trades union representatives were consulted as the major responsibility for rationing the

general public will rest finally with the dairy roundsmen?

Major Lloyd George: Consultations regarding the cut of one-seventh in the domestic consumption of milk for non-priority purposes have been and are still being conducted with English and Scottish distributors representative of all types of businesses. While representatives of the roundsmen were not directly consulted, 1 can assure my hon. Friend that their position is receiving full consideration, and every effort will be made in the administration of the cut, to see that their task is made as easy as possible.

Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that foremen, roundsmen, and managers are already holding a conference, and that during the past week-end strong resentment has been expressed by this conference against the proposals, which have already been denounced as unworkable? Would it not have been preferable to have asked the trade union for their poin of view on this vital issue?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure the hon. Member that we should be very glad to see them.

Mr. Davidson: The Minister stated that their opinion was being considered. Will he specify exactly in what way the roundsmen's trade union are being consulted in regard to this point?

Mr. Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider adopting immediate registration for supplies of milk for domestic use; and whether he will announce before the middle of April, as a guide for dairy roundsmen, what is to be the maximum unit of supply for each person?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. My Noble Friend can see no need to apply the rationing procedure to the distribution of liquid milk.

Mr. W. H. Green: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister whether, in view of the possibility of the distributors finding it impossible to operate this scheme, he will seriously reconsider it? Furthermore, is he aware that the great co-operative societies of this country have expressed their opinion that this scheme is unfair to the consumer and is unworkable?

Major Lloyd George: Of course, if the scheme proves unworkable, we shall have to reconsider it, because the whole object is to make it work.

SUGAR (JAM-MAKING).

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why special privileges are being given to those connected with women's institutes in the distribution of sugar for jam-making; and whether he will consider distributing it through the local food control offices, which would allow all housewives equal access to such supplies of sugar as may be available for jam-making?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. No special privileges are to be given to members of women's institutes in connection with the distribution of sugar for jam-making. Permits to buy sugar for fruit preserving in co-operative centres will be issued solely by the food control offices: in rural areas the work of organising and equipping the centres will be largely undertaken by women's institutes, and in urban areas the food control committees have been asked to set up garden fruit committees, who will enlist the co-operation of various voluntary organisations in operating the centres. The centres will be open to all members of the public on equal terms for preserving garden fruit. Without the help that has been generously promised in the public interest by all these voluntary societies, it would be impossible to organise so many preserving centres and there would be a danger of much fruit being wasted.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister explain what that reply means? Will it be open to all members of the public, and does it mean that they can take their fruit with them and manufacture their own jam?

Major Lloyd George: They do not have to be members of any organisation. It is open to anyone to go there and get their fruit made into jam.

Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister say why he singles out one particular voluntary organisation to perform this task? Is he not aware of the existence of the Women's Co-operative Guild, which should also exercise these powers?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure the hon. Member that we are not con-

centrating on any organisation. The task of organising something like 4,000 centres in this country is a gigantic problem, and it happens that this particular institution has branches throughout the country. The scheme does not preclude other organisations taking part.

EVACUATION AREAS (UNRATIONED COMMODITIES).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps have been taken to prevent shops in evacuation areas from receiving quantities of unrationed commodities in excess of the fair requirements of the reduced population in these areas?

Major Lloyd George: Statistics showing the extent of movements of population have been issued to manufacturers and distributors of foodstuffs, who have been asked to adjust their distribution arrangements accordingly. Further measures of control to regulate the distribution of the more important unrationed commodities are continually being considered. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 3rd December last to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson), in which I explained that the circumstances of some evacuation areas require special consideration.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that, to a very considerable extent, deliveries of these unrationed commodities to retailers in evacuation areas are still based on a percentage of deliveries made to them before the war? Cannot the Minister do something more to implement the policy he has just announced?

Major Lloyd George: We have already circulated to all the manufacturers of this country the changes in population. My hon. Friend will realise that the new schemes now coming forward for jams and preserves, and cheese, will, of course, make it much easier to obtain an equal distribution. We are keeping in mind the constant changes in population in the country.

Mr. Simmonds: Will not the Minister have a check made of the actual deliveries, say, during the present or coming months, to see whether in fact manufacturers are delivering in accordance with this request?

PIGS AND POULTRY.

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, arising out of the necessity for a reduction in pigs and poultry owing to shortage of feeding-stuffs caused by the war, he will give an assurance that he will not further scale down prices again after a brief interval; and will he give every encouragement to people throughout the country to keep as many pigs and poultry as possible on waste foods?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): I have been asked to reply. Revised scales of prices for pigs and table poultry came into operation on 3rd and 17th March, respectively, and are designed to facilitate the necessary reductions in numbers of these classes of stock owing to shortage of feeding-stuffs. No changes, other than those indicated in the announcements to which I have referred, are contemplated for some time, but future price policy must necessarily be dictated by the needs of the situation. My right hon. Friend is already giving every encouragement to the feeding of waste products to pigs and poultry.

Mr. De la Bére: Is the Minister aware that the practice of scaling-down prices, then putting them up in one month, and scaling them down again, is clumsy and unjust, and shows evident signs of unfinished thought?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member will be aware that the scaling-up as regards light-weight pigs and boiling poultry, was welcomed on the last occasion.

Mr. De la Bére: But the unfinished thought still goes on.

HOUSEHOLD REGISTRATION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that it would simplify the task of distribution, and greatly reduce labour and costs, if all the members of a household registered for rationed commodities with the same shop-keeper; whether this has been considered; and with what results?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, but my Noble Friend is unable to adopt the arrangement. It would necessitate compulsory re-registration which would 6e a. costly and laborious matter, and would

depart from the principle of allowing every individual a free choice of retailer.

Mr. Davies: Would it not be possible, when the Minister's Department is considering this matter later on, to introduce a publicity campaign to get all members of the same household to do their shopping in the same shops?

MERCANTILE MARINE (CREWS, SHORE COMMUNICATION).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he is aware that when ships arrive in various British ports and lie off shore, often for a considerable period of time, there are few motor-boats, and these mostly of a slow type, available to enable the crews to communicate with the shore; and whether better arrangements will be made to enable these men who are performing magnificent service to their country to enjoy greater facilities for shore communication?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): I am anxious to make the best possible arrangements for the seamen in such circumstances, and I am writing to my hon. Friend in regard to the arrangements at the place which he has in mind.

Mr. Garro Jones: Are any officials specifically charged with attending to the welfare of the Mercantile Marine?

Mr. Cross: Yes, that is so. They are given authority for that purpose.

CIVIL DEFENCE.

FIRE-BOMB FIGHTERS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been found necessary in any part of the country to apply compulsory powers to obtain an adequate number of unpaid fire-watchers?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): From the reports which my right hon. Friend has received, it is clear that the Compulsory Enrolment Order will need to be applied in certain areas. It obviously would not be in the public interest for me to disclose the number or location of those areas before arrangements have been made.

Mr. Simmonds: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that his Department is doing all that is possible to prevent the authorities from falling into the easy way of paying watchers where it is difficult to obtain unpaid voluntary watchers?

Mr. Mabane: The authorities are not in a position to do that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the case that in many towns so large a percentage of the people are working overtime on Government work that it is literally impossible to obtain watchers by the voluntary system?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that a good deal of the resentment against fire watching in certain districts is because people are not satisfied that the Order is applied to their employers?

SHELTERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a number of public air-raid shelters that, owing to poor material and bad construction, are unfit for use; and will he ask for a report from local authorities to see what is the extent of this and what they are doing to meet the situation?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): My right hon. Friend is greatly concerned about this matter, and, as he said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 20th March, he has obtained, in consultation with the Regional authorities, a general picture of the position, and has issued instructions as to the course to be followed by local authorities. He has also asked for progress reports on the measures taken, and the first of these reports are now coming in.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Lady aware that these shelters were constructed on specifications prepared by the officials of her Ministry? Will steps be taken to deal with those who have been responsible for this waste of money?

Miss Wilkinson: It was done at a time of great national emergency, and it had to be done with the materials available.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable resentment and indignation is felt by upwards of 2,000 shelterers, many

of whom have suffered severely from bombardment, and who are now threatened with the closure of the larger portion of their public shelter, particulars of which have been sent to him; and whether, in view of the anxiety of the shelterers and of their relatives in the Forces at the threatened eviction, he will take immediate action to prevent this taking place?

Miss Wilkinson: As my hon. Friend is aware, there are good reasons why the continued use of this shelter is not possible. Steps are being taken to provide alternative accommodation.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Cooper Rawson.

Mr. Sorensen: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member did not take advantage of the opportunity given him.

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Cooper Rawson.

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Will the hon. Member please resume his seat.

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have ordered the hon. Member to resume his seat. He must wait until the next Question has been answered. He is delaying the Business of the House.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of Order. May I ask why I am not permitted to ask a Supplementary Question arising out of a matter of very great importance to my own constituents? In the circumstances, seeing that I began to ask a Supplementary Question and was interrupted by other Members, does it not seem a little unfair, with all respect to you, Sir, that I was not allowed to pursue this very important question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have also to consider the question of fairness to other Members. The hon. Member paused and in my opinion was preventing, and I think did prevent, another Member from asking his Question before the time expired.

Mr. Sorensen: Are you aware, Sir, that, in fact, after I had begun to ask my Question, there was a number of interferences with it? In the circumstances I submit that the responsibility for my pause does not rest with me but with other Members. May I ask whether you called them to order before you asked me to resume my seat?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I saw no reason to do so.

WAR WEAPONS WEEKS.

Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the procedure laid down by the head office of the National Savings Campaign for popularising war weapons week; whether he is satisfied that this procedure, particularly in regard to the issue of a programme of events for the week, is not wasteful; and whether he will confer with the National Savings' headquarters upon the matter.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): In view of the importance of securing the fullest possible publicity for War Weapons Weeks, my right hon. Friend does not think that the procedure recommended by the National Savings Committee is open to the criticism which my hon. friend suggests, but my right hon. Friend will be very glad to discuss the matter with him.

Sir C. Rawson: Has my right and gallant friend seen the letter to me from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, describing this procedure as extravagant, which procedure was laid down by the National Savings Committee itself in a circular saying that some sort of leaflet would be required giving the programme for the week? In my constituency that will cost between £400 and £500.

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to discuss the matter with the hon. Member, and perhaps he will tell him all that.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Maxton: Do you not think it grossly unfair, Sir, that there should only be one Question left unanswered on the Order Paper? Having regard to the fact that the questioner is the hon. Member for East

Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), could we not have it answered?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not invite me to go outside the Rules of the House.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Captain John Seymour Berry, commonly called Captain the Honourable John Seymour Berry, for the County of Hertford (Hitchin Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to —

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, Determination of Needs Bill, and Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shipley) Bill, without Amendment.

Consequential Amendment to War Damage Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill intituled

''An Act to make provision for promoting economy and efficiency in the carrying on of the work of public and certain other schools under war conditions." Public and Other Schools (War Conditions) Bill [Lords].

PUBLIC AND OTHER SCHOOLS (WAR CONDITIONS) BILL [Lords'].

Read the First Time; to be read a Second Time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of  Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is twofold. The first portion of the Bill introduces compulsory recruitment for the Civil Defence Services on, broadly, the same lines as for the Armed Forces. The second part of the Bill proposes to effect certain amendments of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act which experience has shown to be necessary. The Bill has been found necessary owing to the shortage in certain districts of whole-time workers for Civil Defence. After carefully reviewing the whole of the circumstances, the Government came to the conclusion that it is imperative that these Civil Defence Forces should be kept up to full strength. The House will appreciate that the original conception of the Civil Defences was based on a citizen force made up of local, part-time, unpaid volunteers, who would consent to be trained, equipped and organised by the local authorities, to come to the aid of their neighbours in time of need. And I should like to emphasise that, notwithstanding the necessity that has arisen to

introduce this conscripting Measure for Civil Defence Forces, the original conception of the citizen force remains unimpaired. In fact, it is fortified by the response that has been made all over the country to give this great service voluntarily.
I cannot give in public the exact figures of the force, but I am sure it is a matter for congratulation that 90 per cent. are giving service as part-time volunteers at this moment in their spare time, and there is no intention to depart from this principle. In fact, the nation has every reason to be proud of the high sense of duty and the courage shown by this great force. The way in which the service has carried out the stern tasks that have fallen upon it is one of the best demonstrations of the will of the people of this country to achieve victory, but from the start it was found necessary to provide in the more vulnerable areas a nucleus of whole-time personnel, and in other areas to rely almost entirely on part-time volunteers. I have no doubt the Lord President, as he has watched this great force come into operation, must have felt a sense of satisfaction at the conception and the working-out of this great scheme. It is true that there may have been defects here and there, but that is not due to the conception of the scheme, but, rather, to the British trait of not always recognising dangers until we are hit.
The position now has become one of difficulty. The increased call for the Armed Forces and for men and women for vital war industries, together with the intensity of air raids, has increased the demands made upon this force, and, I repeat, in some areas and in some services the nucleus of whole-time volunteers is below the requisite establishment. We are satisfied that this can be met quickly and completely only by adopting the principle of compulsory recruitment. It will be clear to the House that this Bill adopts that principle, and for the first time places the Civil Defence Services on the same plane as other Defence Services in relation to the man-power resources of the country. What has been giving us particular concern has been the shortage of recruits for whole-time service in the Auxiliary Fire Service, first-aid parties and the Police War Reserve.
We have adopted many expedients with a view to filling up these gaps. Some


4,000 trained firemen were returned from the Array. Then we tried the expedient of interviewing men who registered for military service on nth and 18th January respectively, individually approaching them at the time of medical examination and giving them the opportunity of joining one of the services which I have mentioned. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Home Security made a personal appeal in the London region to join the Auxiliary Fire Service. With all this the results have not brought the requisite numbers for whole-time service. There are many reasons for this, arising from a variety of causes. There is no reluctance on the part of any of our citizens to take their share in the defence of the country—I want to make that quite clear—but when the men are called up in this way for military service and have been looking forward to the time of medical examination there is a natural inclination that such men should choose one of the traditional Fighting Services. Therefore, without an obligation being placed on them, indeed without the Civil Defence Services being placed on a par with the Fighting Services, the choice does not seem, in their minds, to come within the same category as the old traditional Fighting Services. We are quite satisfied that there are many who have no special inclination towards a particular Service who would welcome the provision now proposed, and others will respond willingly as soon as they are called.
This Bill accordingly proposes to make liable for Civil Defence service men who are liable for service in the Armed Forces of the Crown under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. It imposes similar liabilities upon men who are registered under that Act as conscientious objectors, on condition that they take up some specified work of a civilian nature under civilian control. Civil Defence work is essential work of a civilian nature, and will continue to be under civilian control, and it is particularly humanitarian. We have taken steps which will safeguard conscientious objectors against being drafted into the police, because the police have sometimes to carry arms. 1 hate to disappoint hon. Ladies, but I have again to announce inequality between the sexes, because women are not included in the Bill.
It is not proposed to draft younger men into the Civil Defence Service, but to draw mainly from those over 30 or possibly 35 years of age. There is a proposal under consideration, about which no decision has been arrived at, to review the cases of men who have been placed in Medical Grade 3 on account of certain limited physical defects and who might, nevertheless, be quite capable of rendering Civil Defence Service. Under the instructions given to the medical boards, in reference to the standards that have to be observed for the Army, many things which have caused people to be placed in Grade 3 may not be very important for this Civil Defence Service. In addition, many persons now serving as wardens in the Civil Defence Service are of physical condition on a par with those who have been placed in Grade 3. I need not enumerate the kind of thing it involves, but careful selection will be made.

Mr. Silkin: Will that apply also to men under 30?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, certainly. There may be, for example, a man who has a finger off and who therefore is not available for the Armed Forces. He is probably a case for Grade 3, but he might be quite able to drive a lorry for the Civil Defence Service. Limited physical defects which cause men to be placed in a low grade for the Services may not exclude them from serving for Civil Defence. These cases will have to be reviewed very carefully. This proposal taps a source of younger men about which I know the House has been very concerned in the past. The endeavour will be made to place men in their home towns, and in the Services for which they express preference.
We shall utilise exactly the same machinery for calling-up as we use for calling-up for the Armed Forces, and we shall place before those who are called up the same form of preference as now applies for the three other Services. The House will be aware that the person who is called up can say whether he wants to go into the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. There will now be added this additional preference, which he will be allowed to select. The same provisions as to medical examination and application for postponement of calling-up on grounds of hardship will apply, as now apply to the other Services, but penalties are pro-


vided in the Bill for men who fail to present themselves when called.
Perhaps I may now turn to the terms of service provided in the Bill. It will be appreciated that men are now enrolled in the Civil Defence Service, on either a whole-time or part-time basis, in the service of the local authority. The difference under the Bill is that men called up under it will be deemed to have been taken into the service of the Crown. A man may be posted to the service of a particular local authority, which means that the liability for him actually rests upon the State and not upon the local authority, although he might be transferred to the local authority. For disciplinary purposes he will come under the local authority first. Another point is that a man may be required to transfer and serve in any part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man may become a popular preference. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I leave hon. Members to guess. The Government are anxious that we should be given power in the Bill to form the Civil Defence Force on a regional or possibly a national basis. It will be noticed that power is sought in the Bill to create that organisation if necessary. That is vital, because mobility is essential in Civil Defence, especially when heavy attacks come in certain districts. In addition, the man-power problem in some parts of the country is extremely acute. The heavy drain for munition workers, the long hours worked and many other causes make it difficult in some cases to fill up the required services.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be two categories—the ordinary local service as at present and a national service parallel with the other?

Mr. Bevin: There may be. Power is 'being taken to set it up if necessary. The idea is to get the power in order that the form of organisation may be kept as fluid as possible in order to meet the demand. Another important reason why men should be recruited as in the service of the Crown is that all men called up for the Armed Forces do in fact enter the service of the Crown and it was felt desir-

able that the two conditions should be kept as close as possible. It is also intended that opportunity should be given for whole-time volunteers now in the Service, and within the age of liability to be called up under the Bill and to accept general service, as opposed to local service only. While the new force may be on a regional or a national basis, opportunity will be extended, as the organisation develops, to those already in the Forces.

Mr. Riley: Will the Minister have power under the provisions of the Bill to call upon men up to 41 years of age?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. It is intended that men called up for service shall not receive less favourable treatment as regards terms of service than if they had gone into the Armed Forces. In this service it is extremely difficult to have precisely the same provisions, although endeavours will be made to approximate them. The rate of pay which is provisionally arranged will be £3 10s. per week; that is the basic rate. It will be remembered that the original figure for the Civil Defence was £3, and that £3 was arrived at after careful consideration as to the value that a married soldier with one child was in fact receiving. After that examination, taking it all in, it was determined in the original scheme that £3 was the comparative figure.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will these conscripts be allowed to remain in their trade unions?

Mr. Bevin: The personnel of the Army, at the moment, is permitted to remain in the unions, and as there is a consultative committee, which advises my right hon. Friend in dealing with these problems, I should think that no objection could be raised on that point. However, perhaps the hon. Member will put his question to the Minister of Home Security later. When the original arrangement was made it was recognised that most of the whole-time volunteers—in fact, all of them, I believe—would have been living within reasonable reach of their homes, but under this Bill, as I have already indicated, they may be sent away, and this obviously creates new problems, which have to be met by new provisions. Therefore, provision must be made for those who must maintain their families in one


place and provide for themselves in another.
Then, special arrangements have to be made for men absent from duty through sickness. But I am sure that it will be readily accepted that you cannot deal with all these details in a Bill. Powers have been taken to deal with them, and it is intended to consult the Consultative Committee, which for some time has been the channel through which these matters have been discussed with the trade unions and the men's representatives in the working out of these details. In Clause 3, therefore, it will be noted that the Minister of Home Security is enabled, with the approval of the Treasury, to determine these allowances, and it obviously will be his desire to treat the men on a level with those of the great voluntary forces already established. But if, in trying to approximate to the Service arrangements other problems are raised, especially those dealing with sickness and injury and matters of that character, it may also in time involve adjustments the other way round, in order to try to keep the two sections approximating as near as possible. If men are posted away to another district and are not provided with quarters, it is intended to pay them on the basis now existing in the Transfer Scheme of the Ministry of Labour of 24s. 6d. per week.
Another important point is that we hope to arrange that the men called up for Civil Defence shall be entitled to apply to the War Service Grants Advisory Committee for the relief afforded to soldiers in respect of civil liabilities contracted prior to liability to Military Service. So I think that on the question of conditions, the Government have tried to meet every contingency in a reasonable way. It is further intended to provide that men called up for Civil Defence shall, during periods of temporary sickness—whether on account of injury or otherwise attributable to service, provided that sickness is not due to misbehaviour or is not contracted when off duty—receive allowances enabling them to maintain their dependents and themselves. Hon. Members will note that sickness is brought into the scheme as well as injury. That deals with the main points of the first part of the Bill relating to Civil Defence.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: The Minister mentioned only fire brigades. Could he say whether it is pro-

posed to transfer men to any other sections of the Civil Defence services apart from the fire brigades, such as the rescue and demolition sections?

Mr. Bevin: It may, and it can, apply to other services, but if these points on the first part of the Bill are raised in Debate or by questions I would prefer my right hon. Friend to deal with them in his reply. While I am responsible for the National Service side of the Bill, the problem of administration is really one for the Ministry of Home Security. The House will appreciate that on the administration side, I am not conversant with every detail.
May I now turn to the other provisions of the Bill, which are intended to amend the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939? These amendments relate to the provisions of the principal Act dealing with conscientious objectors. Thanks to the principles adopted by Parliament in the original Act and the administration of that Act, this problem has given rise in this War to comparatively little controversy. There may have been individual difficulties with some employers and some local authorities, but I can say, from a very close and intimate knowledge since I have been in Office, that in the last months it has been reduced so that there are scarcely any cases of difficulty arising. Of course, you always get somebody who wants to go further than Parliament, and that is not always limited to local authorities. Liberty of conscience as a principle has been accepted by this House and by the nation, and, indeed, it was emphasised again only last week in the words of the Prime Minister who said:
Anything in the nature of persecution, victimisation, or man-hunting is odious to the British people."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1941; col. 284, Vol. 370.]
If any person in the country, of any party, takes it upon himself to go further than Parliament has decided to go, we must be conscious, in the words of the Prime Minister, that he has acted in a manner odious to the whole nation. The community has shown that it is tolerant and generous towards the conscientious objector, and has given him a double opportunity of proving his case. On the other hand, I think the public and this House have a right to expect that the conscientious objector himself will loyally accept the verdict arrived at by the tribunal, and in the majority of cases this


is so. But there are those who refuse to accept. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear." Very well, we may as well shut up Parliament and abolish the law. If you give the citizen a right to a judicial hearing, and proper consideration of his case in the courts of the country, I think the public is entitled to ask that he should accept the decision.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why such a large proportion of those who are associated with this Bill refused to accept that decision in 1914?

Mr. Bevin: The administration of the law in 1914 and its administration during this war are entirely different things.

Mr. McGovern: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Bevin: Experience has shown that there are loopholes in the existing law, and that advantage has been taken of them. The first amendment of the law deals with refusal to submit to medical examination. The present position is that a person who so refuses can be taken before a court and fined £5. It is now found that this is not limited to conscientious objectors; others are refusing to submit for entirely different reasons, and a week or two ago I was asked a Question in the House on this very issue, in regard to which the questioner alleged that a prominent Fascist who had refused medical examination had got off scot free. That is an intolerable position in view of the obligations to which the rest of the citizens of this country have to submit, but at the same time I think that a forcible examination would be repugnant and we have not indulged in that. We have also found that in some cases the courts have sent men to prison, but that there is no power in the present law to let them out. They are therefore imprisoned for an indeterminate time, which also is unsatisfactory. To put a man in prison for an undefined time created an intolerable situation. We therefore propose to lay down a maximum period of two years' imprisonment or a maximum fine of £100.

Mr. Lipson: Before which courts will these men appear? Will they appear before the local benches of magistrates or what?

Mr. Bevin: They will appear before the courts of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Benson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is not a very large extension of the powers of the courts of summary jurisdiction? I do not think that at present they have power to impose sentence of two years' imprisonment; I think six months is the limit.

Mr. Bevin: I think it depends on the seriousness of the case whether it will be dealt with by the courts of summary jurisdiction or by conviction and indictment. Clause 5 (4) reads:
(4) If a conditionally registered conscientious objector fails to comply with any condition on which he is registered, he shall, unless he satisfies the court that he had reasonable excuse for the failure, be guilty of an offence under the principal Act and liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine."
That is, of course, a maximum. This gives the court the power to deal with the matter quite clearly, instead of the present indeterminate position. There remains a second difficulty, which relates to conscientious objectors who fail to comply with the conditions on which they have been registered that they must take up specified work. We have found that conditions have been imposed upon conscientious objectors who have not been able to fulfil them. Either there have been physical reasons, or they have been unable to get the kind of work they have been told to get. In such cases the Minister will have power to refer the case back to a local tribunal. That will avoid any prosecution and if, after such reference back, the local tribunal comes to a decision, the Minister cannot then prosecute provided that the new decision of the Tribunal is carried out. There is also the case of wilful failure to comply with conditions. At present under the Act there is no sanction to meet the case of wilful default. We therefore propose to meet the two situations under the proposed Amendment with the same penalty, which I have already indicated
Still another difficulty has arisen with regard to conscientious objectors in connection with the kind of work for which they are registered. If a person is registered for land work, hospital work, civil defence or similar duties, he remains on the conscientious objectors' register, but if he is registered for non-combatant duties, he is passed into the services and his name is immediately transferred from the conscientious objectors' register to the military register. Representations have been made to me to the effect that there is a feeling, which we are very anxious to meet, that to be transferred willy-nilly from the conscientious objectors' register to the military register implies in the mind of the man, and sometimes in the minds of his friends, that he has ceased to hold his conscientious convictions. Therefore we propose a new method, under which, although a man may be put on combatant service, his name will be retained on the conscientious objectors' register; and those whose names have been transferred from that register will now have their names transferred back. Then there is the case of the conscientious objector who passes the tribunal and afterwards alters his mind, and decides to take up combatant service. At present the machinery is extremely cumbersome. The man must either go back to the tribunal to get sanction to transfer, or he must be given his discharge and an attestation form to volunteer for the Army. If he goes through the latter process, he loses all his rights under the original Act in regard to reinstatement. Having looked into this carefully, we came to the conclusion that the right way was the simple administrative one, under which, if a man decides to change from non-combatant to combatant service, we automatically transfer him, and he retains all his rights under the National Service Act. I think that is a very desirable change.
I turn to the question of hardship. There have been many cases, especially during the "blitz," where, because of difficulties of transport, or for other reasons, men have arrived to make their appeals before the umpire, and have found that one, or perhaps both, of the assessors have been unable to attend. That involves loss and difficulties for the person concerned, as the case has to come forward again. We now propose that

if in an emergency assessors cannot attend, the umpire may decide the case. Then there is the question of a renewed application, for an extension, under the hardship conditions. If a man does not apply within 14 days of the date fixed, he has lost all right of appeal. That has happened in many cases. Hon. Members have written to me asking whether in certain cases discretion could not be used, but, although I have often felt that there was good ground for the exercise of discretion, the Act is absolutely arbitrary. We ask the House now to give us discretion to deal justly with such cases. I do not need to elaborate on Clause 9. It is intended merely to clear up certain ambiguities about people resident in the country.
Clause 10 is rather important. During the passage of the principal Act, an Amendment was introduced which allowed certain people to escape their obligations in regard to reinstatement. Put simply, the Act provides that if a man who receives his calling-up notice has been put off about two days before, there is in fact no obligation upon the employer. I am quite sure that the House never intended that. We seek by this Bill to put right that weakness, in order to carry out effectively what we believe to have been the orgininal intention of the House. I ought to refer to Clause 11, which provides for the simplification of the procedure of prosecutions. The first Sub-section re-enacts the provisions of the Defence Regulations, and extends those provisions to the prosecution for similar offences under the present Bill. I think I have now covered the main essential provisions of the Bill, to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading.

Mr. Ammon: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has to leave very shortly for another engagement; but, no doubt, some of the points which we make will be brought to his attention by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Bevin: I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy.

Mr. McGovern: Did the Minister intimate that fact to the hon. Member privately?

Mr. Ammon: Yes, he apologised.

Mr. McGovern: I see; he does not tell the Opposition, but only supporters of the Government.

Mr. Ammon: It was an act of personal courtesy.

Mr. McGovern: I have no objection at all to that, but I think the Minister might have intimated his intention not only to the hon. Member but to the House as a whole.

Mr. Ammon: I understand that the Home Secretary will reply to this Debate. I think all the proprieties have been complied with. I think that the House, with one or two exceptions, will agree that, having regard to the present condition of our national affairs and to the need for prosecuting the war, this Bill had to come at some time or another. That being more or less accepted, there can be very little more for us to do than to examine its provisions, to see that, so far as possible, we safeguard those rapidly shrinking liberties which we have, and that it fulfils exactly the purposes for which it is introduced. The first thing that stands out is the fact that there is no suggestion in the Bill as to the number of persons likely to be involved. It is for an indefinite number. The Minister opened up a rather doubtful question when he said that when a man seeks to enter the Armed Forces he has the right to choose whether he will go into the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force, and that now there will be another choice open to him. I do not think that that is quite accurate. It is not a question of allowing a man to chose whether he will go into the Armed Forces or into Civil Defence; it is merely a matter of recruiting additional people for Civil Defence.
The other criticism that I have to make is that this Bill is characteristic of the way in which we do things in this House —and, I suppose, of our national habits generally—in that it takes two bites at a cherry. We may, before long, have to reconsider this whole question. It will be impossible soon to maintain both the voluntary system and the conscription system side by side in the same Service. The Minister has said that there is no intention of departing from the voluntary principle. That means nothing, because you have departed from it; the Bill itself is a departure from the voluntary prin-

ciple. We appear to be looking for a good deal more trouble, and probably discontent and friction, by seeking to maintain these two things side by side. Before the declaration of war we had the Army and the Territorial Force, but when war was declared they were combined. If we had kept them separate, we would have been in great confusion and difficulty. That is the major criticism that I have to offer with regard to the Bill, and I ask that even now the Minister should give the matter some further consideration.

Mr. Woolley: Is the hon. Member now suggesting that part-time voluntary service in all Civil Defence Services should be abolished?

Mr. Ammon: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. There is full-time voluntary service, and you cannot run the two things together. It will not be long before certain questions arise and circumstances ensue when such people see that, for instance, "X" is paid for this service and that, therefore, such a person is in an altogether different position. That is a point which must be taken into consideration. I imagine that the answer of the Minister will be that under this Measure the demand will not be uniform throughout the country; that there are some parts of the country where there is a plentiful supply to meet the needs of the Civil Defence forces, and in other parts there is not, and, therefore, I think it will not be necessary to apply this conscription force, although it can be applied throughout the country, to one part as against another. Even that will by no means remove the possible difficulties that may arise.
There are other problems with which, no doubt, the Minister who replies can deal. What is to happen in regard to reserved labour? Will they be broken into by this Bill? What is to happen with regard to difficulties that will be experienced where firms on armament production are already finding difficulty in getting the necessary labour and are complaining about it? Here we have another pull on that same pool which will add to the present difficulties. One of the great difficulties already experienced in some of the factories engaged in the manufacture of armaments is that of getting labourers, and it is very likely that, in regard to the


force to which we are now proposing conscription, the difficulties will be extended.
On the question of the discipline of the proposed force, as I read the Bill, it seems to be neither one thing nor the other. Which is to be the real authority—the local government authority, the regional authority, or a central board? It seems to be a mixture of the lot. The difficulty will be, whether it is under the A.R.P. controller or not, that other problems will arise, all of which will cause a certain amount of difficulty and interfere with the smooth working of the Measure. Will the operation of the Bill be extended beyond the three Services? Broadly speaking, I think I am right in saying that the present objective is to meet the demands in the Auxiliary Fire Service, the Police War Reserve, or the first-aid or ambulance service, but I see nothing in the Bill to prevent it from being applied even further. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that matter. The Measure may be very widely applied to the wholesale conscription of labour, for which in present conditions there may be a great deal to be said, but it would be far better to face the issue fairly and squarely than to arrive at it by devious means, thus making it more difficult. It will also raise suspicions and objections in the minds of people which need not be there if people are dealt with fairly and squarely from the outset.
Will the medical examination be on a military standard? I imagine from what the Minister said that certain persons who could not be taken into the military categories might be taken in this connection. Will the penalties for any offences committed by personnel be under the military code or the civil code? I observe that those who may receive injuries in the course of their duties will receive hospital treatment up to 13 weeks, and in that respect the position differs from that in the Armed Forces, where they can go to hospital for an even longer period. I suggest that the latter arrangement should be extended to the force raised under this Bill. Although they will draw actually in cash a larger sum than men serving in the Armed Forces, there should be no difficulty in bringing the services up to something like uniformity.
The Minister also made reference to the possibility of transferring persons unsuitable for service in the Civil Defence forces

to the Armed Forces. What does that mean? Does it mean that people may be intimidated or have threats held over them by certain local authorities which may, for the time being, be the controlling authority when they think that they do not quite come up to scratch? I think there have been some wrong terms used, if the same conditions are to be maintained in regard to transfers in the Forces. It is not possible to transfer a man from the Army to the Navy without his consent, and I see nothing in this Bill which gives the Minister a greater power than that already held in connection with the Armed Forces to transfer a person even against his will to some other Service. If that is intended, then Amendments will have to be brought forward to the Bill itself. A question was raised during the course of the speech of the Minister as to the choice of those who are to be brought under the Bill for the Civil Defence Services. I suggest that probably it would be worth while to treat those of the youngest age as being not quite fitted to come into work such as the Auxiliary Fire Service and the Police War Reserve, and it would perhaps be advantageous if a definite age limit were set with regard to these particular categories.
I want to say a word with regard to those who are concerned on the voluntary side. Since I have taken up duties across the bridge, I have signed letters of consolation and comfort to relatives of those who have lost their lives, particularly in the Auxiliary Fire Service, and in other services, giving testimony to the unflinching and devoted services rendered voluntarily by those who risked and sacrificed their lives in defending their homes. The front line of this war so far has been the home front and not in the trenches or overseas, and I think the House might well make a note of the sacrifices which these men have made.
The other points I wish to make are not in any way meant as hostile criticism but by way of pointing out what one thinks are the defects of the Bill. With regard to the conscientious objectors, whether one wholly agrees with the Minister of Labour or not—and I know he does not wholly accept the position of conscientious objectors—I think we ought to pay tribute to his fair-mindedness and the understanding he has displayed in connection with this matter. There are


three categories of service for conscientious objectors, and one section is known as the Friends Ambulance Unit. I think they may fall within two categories—those selected for non-combatant service and those for national service. Some are engaged in hospital work here, while others are prepared to do special work on the field of battle if necessary. I imagine that these people will be allowed to stand undisturbed in the position they have taken up and not to have again to go before any tribunal with respect to this particular Bill. I do not know, however, what will be the position of the absolutists.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): They are not in the Bill.

Mr. Ammon: I was wondering whether they might reconsider their position in the face of a Bill like this. Penalties are imposed on conscientious objectors who break the terms of their work, but there are employers, too, who do not play up. Conscientious objectors are sometimes told to continue in their present employment, and it is not unknown that employers refuse to carry out their side of the bargain. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see that the law as it is at present is administered equitably. My hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked whether members of these Services, particularly the A.F.S., would be allowed to become members of a trade union, and the Minister replied, in effect, that they would be in the same position as those in the Armed Forces who are allowed to maintain their membership, although the ordinary trade-union rules do not operate. But the regular Fire Brigade has a trade union, and it is allowed to approach its employers.

Mr. H. Morrison: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to clear up that point. There will be no objection to a man maintaining his trade-union membership or to a union functioning as regards Civil Defence. We recognise a Consultative Committee of the trade unions for the purposes of mutual discussion, so I think he need have no fear on that point, although he will appreciate that there are certain disciplinary aspects of the matter that may be a little different from the

normal industrial regulations and special considerations as regards the police.

Mr. Ammon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. I think one must admit that on the whole it is pretty generous. I did not raise the question of the police, because I know their position. It seems to me that the main criticism of this Bill must turn on the endeavour to run the voluntary and compulsory systems side by side. It looks to me that they must break down and that there will be friction, leading to a considerable weakening of the voluntary service. On the other hand, I admit that there are many people who are quite willing, and waiting, to be conscripted, but it will be a great pity if anything is done which may injure the great spirit of voluntarism which has played so large a part up to now. The three Services I have mentioned need strengthening, and I think some way might have been found of trying to maintain the voluntary principle, without smashing it up, as it undoubtedly will be smashed, instead of trying to impose an alliance of voluntarism and compulsion.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like to join with the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who has just spoken, in paying a tribute to the spirit in which the Minister of Labour has introduced this very important Measure. I think it is a very remarkable thing that at this great crisis in our history, when it may well be that the whole future of human civilisation will be altered for better or for worse as a result of the struggle through which we are now going, the Minister and the Government and, I hope, the people and Parliament, too, should be earnestly concerned to have regard for the sincere conscientious objections of individual citizens, and that they should take steps to protect the rights of conscience even when it is believed that that conscience is mistakenly informed. One ought to recognise that at the very outset, and I hope that the spirit which the Minister has shown in his speech, and the spirit that his Department have shown in their administration, will be carried out in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. This encourages me to hope that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage it may be possible


slightly to modify certain features so as to remove apprehensions that exist somewhat widely in the country. There are points in the Bill which will command all but universal approval. It is a good thing that the great work of Civil Defence should be recognised for the important national service that it is, and that men called to undertake that work, which is often very dangerous and difficult, should be given the rights and privileges, as well as the duties, that are given to their fellow citizens who undertake military service. That is a very important feature of the Bill.
As the Minister has said, it is also a valuable point in the Bill that conscientious objectors who are at present undertaking non-combatant service should have their names removed from the military register and restored to the register of conscientious objectors. This should cause a great deal of satisfaction and will remove misunderstandings. I do not know whether this is a preliminary step, but I gather it is quite likely that there will be transfers of existing members of non-combatant corps, where they are needed, to work in civil national service under the provisions of this Bill.
As I have indicated, there are one or two points which I hope will be further considered by the Government in the Committee stage. The Bill provides for the calling up for national service in Civil Defence of conscientious objectors who have received conditional exemption from a tribunal. In a number of cases these men accepted that conditional registration because the work to which they were assigned was work which they could not only conscientiously do, but for which they felt they had a calling. They believed it was the best service they could render, and admittedly it was useful service, or they would not have been assigned to it by the tribunal. In some cases they could not give up such service for an unknown form of Civil Defence without feeling that they were false to their conscience. Therefore, there will be a real risk that in a number of cases men may be called up from work that is useful, and in the national interest, which they can render gladly and willingly, and be placed in the position of breaking the terms of the Act and incurring its penalties. I do not think the Government wishes this, and consequently, I urge that in such cases there

should be an opportunity of appeal either to the present tribunals, or to some other suitable body, before a decision is made. If some amendment of that sort were possible, it would remove a very real sense of anxiety felt by a large number of men who are anxious to serve their fellow citizens and their country, and whose present work is of real help to the community in its time of need.
Another point to which I want to refer is the position of those who have not fulfilled their conditions and those who have failed to register. It is right that there should be penalties when there is a wilful failure to observe conditions and when there is a failure to go up for a medical examination. Those who refuse to do this on conscientious grounds will, if they are conscientious, recognise that it is the duty of the State to enforce its law, and that therefore, they must incur the penalties prescribed by law; but there is a danger that, unless there is in this Bill a provision analogous to Section 13 of the principal Act, the penalty may be incurred again and again, and there will be that "cat-and-mouse" position that existed during the last War, when men were court-martialled and sentenced to imprisonment repeatedly—sometimes as many as four or five times—for what was really the same offence. I do not think it is the invention of the Government that a penalty of this sort should recur again and again, and I suggest that there should be provided in the Bill an opportunity for the Minister to refer to a tribunal the case of a man who goes to prison through a failure to register and is sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. The tribunal could then go into the question of the sincerity of his conscientious conviction. The same thing applies, after a sentence of this kind has been incurred, to those who have failed to observe their conditions of registration. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give consideration to these points with a view to amending the Bill in what are, after all, comparatively minor matters.
I feel that by far the most important thing at this time is that the country should realise the tolerant and broad-minded spirit in which the Government are endeavouring to deal with this very real problem. In supporting the Government in that attitude, I think we are showing that as a nation we stand for a


type of civilisation which recognises the worth of human personality everywhere, and respects the right of conscience everywhere, even though that conscience may be ill-informed. That is something immensely precious that we need to preserve. I am glad that the Minister of Labour referred to the intolerant way in which certain local authorities and employers have dealt with conscientious objectors who have given them good service and have fulfilled the terms of their exemption. I hope the Minister will use his full influence to see that instances of this sort do not recur. There are cases of local authorities that have dismissed from their fire-fighting organisation men who have given months, and in some cases over a year, of good service, and who have risked their lives in those services, and that simply on the ground that they were registered as conscientious objectors. Under this Bill, the Minister may send to such authorities conscientious objectors— perhaps the very men whom they have dismissed from their service—and I hope he will see that the local authorities responsible for these local defence services make no unfair differentiation in the treatment of the men who are to serve them at a time of great need. It is a great service that they will be rendering to the community as a whole. I am very glad that the Bill recognises the importance of that service, and I hope it will be rendered whole-heartedly and gladly for the cause of the country, and for the sake of all those things for which it stands.

Mr. Lipson: I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) in two of the things he said. Firstly, I agree with his reference to the importance of this Bill, and, secondly, I agree with his remarks on the manner in which the Minister introduced it. In particular, I agree with him in the very fine tribute he paid to the spirit of toleration with which the Government have approached this particular subject. This Bill is very necessary, and it is a further recognition of the importance of Civil Defence in the national war effort. For various reasons our Civil Defence forces have been depleted—some of its members have been called up for Army service, and others have been attracted to alternative De-

fence services, such as the Home Guard, fire-watching and so on. The result has been that in many areas establishments have fallen below what many would consider as reasonably safe. Therefore, it is all to the good that the Government have realised the necessity of having a Measure which provides and ensures that our Civil Defence, which is so essential for our national security, shall be maintained at its proper strength.
This Bill is framed on generous lines, and it shows fair regard to the views of those who hold conscientious objections to military service. For that reason I have been surprised to receive, as probably have other hon. Members, three or four telegrams asking me to vote against the Bill. I think that those who sent these telegrams must have been under some misapprehension as to the Clauses of the Bill, and also the spirit in which the Government intend to carry it out. It has been recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities—and no one has a more sympathetic understanding of the minds of conscientious objectors than he—that the Government have shown a very tolerant spirit and a generous attitude towards this difficult problem. I suggest that that calls for an equally understanding mind on the part of those who hold conscientious objections, and that when they are called upon to serve, under the provisions of this Bill, in work of Civil Defence, which is primarily humanitarian, they should be willing to respond to the calls made upon them.
With regard to the Bill itself, I was glad that the Minister stated the standard of medical examination for those who are to serve under its provisions will not be so high as that for men serving in the Military Forces. It is obvious that there is a great number of people now performing a very fine service in Civil Defence who could not pass the medical examination for the Armed Forces. Therfore, it is necessary that there should be some modified standard of medical fitness acceptable for Civil Defence purposes. From what was said by the Minister, I understand that that is to be classed as Category 3. It may arise that after a period in the Civil Defence Forces some of the men may wish to transfer to the Armed Forces of the Crown, just as one finds that men in one branch of a mili-


tary service desire to transfer to another where they feel they can render more useful service. I should like to ask whether it will be possible for anyone serving under this Bill in the Civil Defence Forces, if he so wishes, to transfer to some military service? The Minister says that under this Bill it would be possible for men serving in one particular locality to be transferred elsewhere, and perhaps to serve in some national unit. I should like to have an assurance, before men are transferred from one particular area to another, that the A.R.P. authorities in the area concerned shall be consulted, because it would be a serious matter if the Service in any particular area was depleted without proper consultation with those responsible. As I have said, the Civil Defence Services have already suffered from the competition of other Services, and it may be found, if men are transferred against the judgment of the local A.R.P. authorities, that it will have a disturbing effect. I should like to know who decides whether a man should be transferred to some other district.
Perhaps the most important issue raised by this Bill is the effect it is likely to have upon the voluntary system. I represent a constituency where the personnel of the Civil Defence Services, except in the case of the Fire Services, are entirely voluntary and unpaid. I am wondering what effect a Bill of this kind is likely to have on areas of that kind. The question arises, if we are now taking power to compel people to give full-time service in Civil Defence and pay them accordingly, whether we should not also take power to compel people to give part-time service, as is already possible in the case of fire watching.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): There are such powers.

Mr. Lipson: Do I understand from the Minister that it is possible to compel a man to be a part-time A.R.P. warden?

Mr. Mabane: Mr. Mabane indicated assent.

Mr. Lipson: I thought it was entirely voluntary, and that local authorities had no powers to compel people. In many areas too great a pressure is being put on a limited number of individuals who are giving part-time service, and who also have their ordinary occupations to

follow. This is because the number of volunteers is not as large as it ought to be. It throws an unnecessarily heavy burden on those who have volunteered, and I should like to ask whether, in view of the fact that men who serve under this Bill will be paid entirely by the State, the need for economy so far as local authorities are concerned is not very largely removed. It may happen that in many areas where the Civil Defence has been carried out by unpaid personnel they will feel they ought now to ask for men enlisted under this Bill. I should like to ask who is the deciding authority as to whether they should be given the right to have paid full-time people to replace part-time unpaid people. Is that a matter that is to be left to the regional authority, or, if not, who will decide it?
Obviously, it will follow that one result of this Bill will be to make it even more difficult than it has been in the past to get people to give for nothing part-time service in Civil Defence, because there will be the feeling that there ought to be the men available to give full-rime service under the Bill. The important thing is to maintain an adequate Civil Defence everywhere, and I should like to have an assurance that, where an authority finds that its establishment has suffered in consequence of this Bill, it will have no difficulty in obtaining consent to recruit full-time paid service. As the cost of the pay of these people will be forthcoming from the State, I imagine that these requests will be more numerous than they have been in the past, when, no doubt, considerations of local economy have tended to maintain the voluntary unpaid system. But the important thing is to have an efficient system, whether it is unpaid or paid, and it is because I am convinced that the Bill will take us very much further on the road to an efficient Civil Defence Service that I welcome it.

Mr. McGovern: I am afraid I cannot agree with most of what has been said by previous speakers either as to the fine qualities of this Bill or the proposals embodied in it. We propose to attempt to divide the House against it, because we think it a thoroughly bad Measure in its intended effect upon conscientious objectors. I cannot say that I am amazed, but I think


it rather singular that it should be sponsored, among others, by three members of the Labour party, who took no part in the last war, and two of whom, at least, had conscientious objections to war in every shape and form. The Minister of Labour was in a reserved occupation, and the Secretary of State for Scotland conducted his battle as editor of an anti-war journal in Glasgow, urging everyone to resist and encouraging conscientious objectors to refuse service of any kind, and supporting them in their objection. As a matter of fact, I should say on reflection that some of the propaganda carried on by the right hon. Gentleman came perilously near being pro-German propaganda rather than anti-war propaganda. Nevertheless, that excess might have been attributed to the zeal of the individual as a war-hater. I suppose he will not be here to-day. I expect he has a pressing engagement. He usually has in these circumstances. At the last Election, he gave a pledge to his constituents that in no conditions would he support war of any kind, no matter what were the alignments of party in the House or in the country.
The Minister of Home Security conducted his struggle in an orchard during the last war and refused to accept anything connected with it at all, so deep was his loathing of war. I can imagine the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, with his shaggy red head, sitting back over a glass of whisky and a cigar enjoying themselves immensely at the position of the three Labour defenders of freedom sponsoring a Bill of this kind against conscientious objectors. I do not know what part the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Home Security played in the last war, but for a number of years previous to this war his spiritual home was in Moscow, which was also the spiritual home of the hon. Lady who is now Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, when she was in the Communist party and flirted with it for many years. We must remember the words of Mr. Priestley, that
Labour is walking into a trap, and the reactionaries will do it across them at the appropriate time.
They have them in position now. The Minister of Labour said, previous to this war, "We want to teach our children that resistance to war is more glorious

than to take part in it." He said some thing more about his chief—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must ask the hon. Member to come somewhat closer to the Bill.

Mr. McGovern: I am surely entitled, when opposing a Bill, being the only Opposition Member who has spoken, to analyse the conduct of Members who are sponsoring it, and to compare their services in the last war, with their attempt to penalise conscientious objectors in this war. With this small quotation I will pass on to the Bill. The Minister of Labour said, regarding the present Prime Minister,
It would be a Godsend for this country if Churchill was out of office for evermore. It is not that he is not brilliant: but it is not safe to leave the destiny of millions of people in the hands of a man of unstable mind.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said as far back as 1926. The Measure seeks to penalise certain conscientious objectors. It first takes power to call them for Civil Defence. Those who are associated with it, especially on the Labour side, should know that there are various categories of conscientious objectors, and very often the man whom you are going to penalise is a complete pacifist, very often a Christian objector, who would have nothing to do with war of any kind. That individual is to be selected for attack and for the brutality of the imprisonment and the fines that will be imposed on him if he is convicted in the courts. There are some people who are political objectors. I, myself, was a conscientious objector in the last war. I appeared before a tribunal, and I had to appear before Labour magistrates, some in Glasgow, who were keen advocates of the war. In that war I was a political objector, but I did not subscribe to complete pacifism. I believe that ultimately it may be necessary at times regrettably to use a measure of force in order to achieve the ends for which I stand. A large number of people are Christian conscientious objectors and some are Socialist absolutists who refuse to have anything to do with war at all.
The Minister of Home Security in an aside said to the hon. Member on the Labour Front Bench who had spoken that the absolutist was protected. That is not true, however. The absolutist who gets through the tribunal is protected, but


the absolutist who is refused exemption is not protected and will be an early victim of the application of this Bill. There are men who have gone through the tribunals and have been given conditional exemption. Many men who are determined not to enter the military machine in any way take the view that the best way, sacrificing principle as little as possible, is to get through the war in the easiest manner by accepting the decisions of the local or appellate tribunals. They would be willing to take land, forestry, land reclamation or drainage work, but they would refuse to go into Civil Defence work because they would then become part of the machinery of the war to which they have a decided objection. It would have been well worth while appealing to those who are registered as conscientious objectors to see how many were prepared to serve in some useful capacity in a voluntary way and then to have allotted them the tasks for which they volunteered. That would have recognised the position of the absolutist and would have avoided the imposition of penalities of any kind.
I went to Liverpool three weeks ago and met ten conscientious objectors Nine out of the ten were religious objectors, and I am satisfied that nothing would persuade them to take part in Civil Defence of any kind. They are determined to remain completely aloof from any kind of war service. Men who have been allotted to certain work of a civilian nature will in many cases, therefore, if they are asked to do work on Civil Defence refuse to go any further than they have done in recognising the decisions of a tribunal. Is it to be the opinion of Members of this House that because a man fails to go through a tribunal he is not a genuine conscientious objector? Let me quote the petition of a Member of the House showing the absolutist position:
I plead ' Not guilty ' to wilful disobedience. I cannot obey any military order because I cannot recognise the authority of the military. I may be deemed to have enlisted by Act of Parliament, but I do not consider myself a member of any military organisation. I have taken no oath, have refused to sign papers and have obeyed no military orders, and my refusal stated in the charge is but a continuation of the position the Camberwell Tribunal placed me in by failing to administer the Military Service Act and by refusing to grant that form of exemption

provided in the Act for persons holding the views I hold.
The Tribunals have admitted I am a genuine conscientious objector. and even refused to hear testimonials and evidence on the grounds of their complete satisfaction with my sincerity and long consistency.
I cannot obey military orders, on religious and moral grounds; I believe in human brotherhood and in the ' common humanity ' and common interests of the peoples of all nations. I believe in the co-operation, and not competition to the death, between individuals and nations. I view war as merely a test of might resulting from dynastic ambitions, commercial rivalries, financial intrigues and imperialistic jealousies. That is a stupid, costly and obsolete method of attempting to settle the differences of diplomatists in which the common people always pay with their blood, vitality and wealth.
For many years I have given the whole of my leisure in earnest work to uplift my fellows; to change the social system so that life may be made a more splendid and noble thing. I cannot, therefore, on moral grounds, form any part in a military organisation.
Besides, these considerations are very deep religious objections. I believe God lives Himself through the whole human race. I believe in the inherent worth and sanctity of human personality, and that humanity is bound together in spiritual unity. I cannot, therefore, participate in any military organisation, every part of which is designed to make the machine of militarism efficient, and the method of which is the destruction of human life.
Hate is engendered by the use of force. Love and good-will alone will conquer the hearts of mankind. Humanity is my firm allegiance. I claim liberty of conscience, and therefore cannot obey military orders. If your humanity is to be delivered from the horrors and ghastliness of war, man must remain true to the ideal of fraternity and love and peace.
I am before you because I remain faithful to my religious and moral convictions. If you deliver judgment against me, I claim to be dealt with by the civil authorities. I could do no more than I have done—to have obeyed would be against the highest spiritual and moral welfare of this nation.
That was the statement of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who is now Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Labour. He was an absolutist, and I cannot square that statement with his association with this Bill and this Ministry. His statement represents the point of view of the absolutist who refuses to serve or in any way to be drawn into the machine.
I am amazed at some of the statements made here to-day. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) talked about toleration, but I have not been able to find it. Go to the Glasgow Tribunal, for instance, and see the comfortable, smug, callous individuals


sitting on the bench and asking trick questions of the applicants. See their insults being hurled from the bench towards applicants because they have convictions. Principle has never entered into their lives, and they cannot understand other people having principles and consciences. The Minister of Labour, whose attention has been drawn to it, has tolerated people on the tribunals who every day go to great lengths to insult applicants. If an applicant retorts, he is put "down as impertinent, and the last word is with the tribunal, for it can turn him down if he dares to assert his manhood in any way. Cases have happened all over the country of people who have had their heads dipped in buckets of water and their hair shaved, and who have been beaten in secret because they have had consciences.
How far has the Labour party fallen since the days when, as a boy, I was enamoured of its stand for freedom. Now it is handing over every vestige of freedom, giving men and women the false statement that we are engaged in a struggle for human freedom and liberty. That is if they believe that, though I do not believe it, because I cannot see any difference between this war and any other war. It is just a commercial struggle between two competing groups. That has always been the economic position in modern war. But even if they accepted the position and believed that this was a different war, would we not have expected a different attitude from that Front Bench? The Front Bench of the Labour party is expected to house men who are prepared to defend every form of minority, but how many words have been spoken since this war began—outside the few pacifists in the Labour party, or by those who were conscientious objectors in the last war—by Members sitting on the Government benches in defence of men whose principles are involved and who are to be penalised if they refuse to obey the call to Civil Defence? It is to be a fine of £100 and up to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
I remember the present Secretary of State for Scotland, during the last war, turning his intolerant, narrow, biting pen on the Thomases and the others who had supported that war, writing every word

of condemnation he could of those men because they supported the war. I could imagine him, as he did in the last war, turning with all his vitriolic personality against those who have stood aside and allowed these men to be persecuted in this war. I should expect Conservatives to take their present attitude towards conscientious objectors, because is not the war a defence of the interests of the Conservative and Liberal elements in this country? They regard themselves as fighting for their lives against an opponent who is trying to gain commercial and imperialist supremacy, and they will fight like beasts of the jungle to protect their interests. Now the Labour party has been taken into the Government—taken in in more than one sense—and now the whole organisation for the suppression of every form of speech and protest is supported by these individuals who have secured positions in that Government.
It reminds me of a story of the great perturbation which arose in one area over whether a certain Labour Member should be elected to the magistracy, because; it was feared he would be biased in favour of the proletariat. It was decided to chance it, however, and this Labour Member, knowing that there had been this criticism, would pass a sentence of 60 days where another magistrate would have given only 30 days—in order to avoid any criticism from the ruling classes that he was biased in his attitude. This Bill is being presented by a Government of Tories and National Liberals and Labour Members—if there is any difference between them. Some of the Tories have served in the war, and here I would pay my tribute to every man, whether he is in Civil Defence or National Defence, who is fighting for the things in which he believes. But how many Labour M.P.s have fought on the battlefield? How many trade-union leaders? The first thing that was done was to get the Ministry of Labour to reduce the ages in certain reserved occupations from 30 to 25, so that every clerk in their offices should be in a reserved occupation. It was for the proletariat rank and file to die in defence of the freedom that they had decided they wanted to preserve. The average Labour Member of Parliament who is within the age is not prepared to serve, and yet is prepared to sit silent and not even defend the rights of individuals under this Bill. One would expect


some generosity to come from them; but no, they are caught up in the trap completely, and they go on and penalise these other men.
Before I finish let me give an example of a man who was a conscientious objector but who succumbed and entered the Army. I had entered into correspondence with this individual. He was an absolutist. He would not serve. He asked me for advice. I said that I would give him information, but I would not give him any advice. On all occasions I have said to conscientious objectors, "You must make up your own minds; decide your course of action for yourself. I am not going to advise you one way or the other." After a time he wrote to me. He said that I should be amazed to see where the letter came from. It came from a military barracks. In it he said, "You know, McGovern, I am afraid you will think I have let you down tremendously, but I found that my whole social environment—in my home, in the district, amongst my companions—was so overwhelmingly anti-conscientious objector that I was compelled to succumb. I had not the necessary courage to be a conscientious objector, only sufficient courage to be a soldier." That was the confession of one man.
There is a large number of people in this country who take the view that conscientious objectors are cowards, simply people who are evading service. They are wrong in that. There may be some people who only try to evade service and are not against offering up other lives. I would say to this House and to Labour Members in the Government that the conduct of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Home Security and the hon. Member for Shipley—that they take this view that they are cowards because they wish to change the attitude of people like these. In one war they are absolutely against the war, and then in the present war, when they are over military age, they are backing the war and inviting repression of conscientious objectors. People say, "Is it not true that this conscientious objection business is only a ramp?" They are encouraged to believe it is a racket because of these people who have been active in opposing war when they were of military age and are backing war when they are over mili-

tary age—and you cannot blame them for that.
I know many genuine men who are conscientious objectors. My own son is a conscientious objector. He would probably not come completely within the terms of the Act. He is a political objector; he makes no bones about it. At the tribunal every form of pressure was used against him. At the tribunal he was asked whether his father backed the Spanish Civil War or not. That is the type of mind that was on the bench. He was asked, "Is it not the case that your father backed the Spanish Civil War, and would you have backed the Spanish Civil War? Did you believe that the Spanish Government were right?" —all that sort of thing. On the Spanish position he was turned down—although the present Lord Privy Seal went out to Spain himself, and they all backed the Spanish Civil War. He was turned down because he said manfully that the Spanish Government were right in resisting Franco. It was on his paper. He did not say, and I have never stated, that I would fight for the Spanish people. All that I demanded was that the Spanish people had the right by international law to purchase arms for their own defence, if they wanted to. I opposed intervention, and his opposition was the same. [Interruption.] I do not object to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) believing that this is a thoroughly proper struggle and that he ought to take a rifle and go out to defend the people of this country.
I have never objected to Labour Members joining the Army, but I have said that they shelter themselves behind the fact that they are Members of Parliament. They were prepared to declare war and encourage the young people to go out to fight in order to keep them and their Parliamentary government going. One of the great arguments against Hitler is that he has oppressed trade unionism and Parliamentary government. It might be true that if he came here, Parliamentary government would have to be defended, and no doubt I should defend it in a concentration camp. That is no reason why I should ask the ordinary men and women to go out and keep me in a privileged position in this country. If I believed that, I ought to go out and defend it myself. Let us put an end to this humbug


by people who are persecuting the conscientious objectors and by some of these people who are so versatile that they can change from one position to another in a very short space of time. There is the Noble Lady who is sitting there. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I made a mistake when I said "Noble Lady." I was thinking rather of what she imagines than of what she is. One would expect people like her, according to her professions of a few years ago, to defend the rights of conscientious objectors at the present time. One would have expected her to oppose the Bill, because she has professed to stand for freedom, especially when she was a member of the Communist party.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): For five years I fought against the Nazis while you people tried to excuse them. Why should I not fight against them now?

Mr. McGovern: Why are you not in the W.A.A.F.S.?

Miss Wilkinson: I am doing my job here.

Mr. McGovern: It is a damned good job. I can quite understand, when people climb into that kind of job at £30 or £40 a week, that they can ask the ordinary soldier to right and do his job for 2s. a day That is the kind of sacrifice we are getting.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very near to personalities.

Mr. McGovern: Yes, but I must express myself. It is very difficult for anybody in my position to keep from personalities. The Labour movement has been built up on personalities.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to attack the personal honour and courage of Members of this House who, throughout many months, have shown immense bravery in their constituencies by-helping during the air bombardment which has taken place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is never in Order for an hon. Member to attack the personal courage or conduct of any individual Member by name. One can attack a group or a party. I endeavoured to restrain the hon. Member from attacking individuals.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Member avails himself of the Ruling you have just given, is he not acting in a manner which is beneath all contempt?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. McGovern: I can understand the hon. Member being annoyed, because truth always annoys a considerable number of people. It was all right when they were lashing across at the Tories before the war began, but not when an hon. Member, who believes in his Socialism, has a conscientious objection and states what he believes to be true. I will stand up for my opinions inside this House, if it is in order to do so, or outside this House, according to my views and beliefs. In my estimation, the Bill is the culmination of a series of acts that have been designed to penalise those who have a genuine objection to this war. We oppose it on the ground of the penalties it seeks to impose upon those who may have a genuine conscientious objection and who have failed to get recognition from the tribunals. The penalties it seeks to impose are very drastic, in our opinion.
Some people may be prepared to do work of a civilian character, but the fact that they are to be ordered to do so by a court and that penalties will be held over their heads will compel a large number of those people to resist to the end. In so far as they resist, our work has always been in their defence, whether in war or in peace. We will, therefore, oppose this Measure, as coming from a Government who, in our estimation, are travelling the Totalitarian road, and are destined in the end to embrace the things which they profess to be out to end. I refuse to believe, as some people do, that the Bill is necessary in order to conduct the war. I believe it is part of the industrial dragooning that has taken place in this country against the workers and against every person with principle and independence.

Mr. Silkin: We have just listened to a speech which was interesting, abusive, irrelevant and muddle-headed. The hon. Gentleman has taken advantage of the Privilege which this House offers of making slanderous statements which I am certain he would not dare to make outside this House.

Mr. McGovern: I will make them in any part of the country you like, and I have made them outside. I will go further than that.

Mr. Silkin: It is obvious that the hon. Member has a private grievance and quarrel with certain other Members of this House, and it is scandalous that our time should be wasted by a speech of that kind, in which he never once referred to the Bill.

Mr. McGovern: I did refer to it.

Mr. Silkin: I am certain that the hon. Member has not read the Bill and does not know what is in it.

Mr. McGovern: I have read the Bill. As a matter of fact, not only have I read the Bill, but last night I went through it very thoroughly indeed. There was scarcely a comma that I did not look at.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Member has read the Bill, he has not understood it.

Mr. McGovern: Oh, yes I have. You cannot get away with that cheap stuff.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member cannot possibly have a grievance about the Bill, which improves the position of the conscientious objector and does not take away any of his privileges. If the hon. Member has a grievance, it may be against the original National Service (Armed Forces) Act, but the Bill sets right many grievances. The hon. Member made a speech which was irrelevant, and I do not feel moved to take up any of the points which he made; but I think it worth while to say one thing.

Mr. McGovern: Yes, you have to defend your leaders.

Mr. Silkin: I would like the hon. Member to say whether he would have the House believe that he wants everybody who alleges that he has a conscientious objection to be taken as such, merely on his own word.

Mr. McGovern: The test of conscience must always be the personal evidence of the individual. The conscientious objector is compelled in many cases to supply evidence to the tribunal, and in spite of the overwhelming character of the evidence, prejudiced people refuse to accept it. I am defending these men, who are genuine conscientious objectors.

Mr. Silkin: The reply of the hon. Member is quite of the order of his speech. He did not give a categorical answer whether he would have the bare statement of the conscientious objector accepted without any question.

Mr. McGovern: Yes.

Mr. Silkin: If he would have it so—

Mr. McGovern: Just as in the case of the Minister for Home Security during the last war.

Mr. Silkin: I am certain that that would not commend itself to the vast majority of the people in this country. We have set up a tribunal where a conscientious objector can be tested, and the conscientious objector has an opportunity not only of coming before that tribunal but, if he is not satisfied, of coming before an appellate tribunal. By this Bill the conscientious objector is being put in a more favourable position than the ordinary person who is called up for military service, because the ordinary person who appeals for postponement on the ground of hardship has only one appeal and he can get a second appeal only if the hardship tribunal agree that he should have one; if it does not agree, the decision of the hardship tribunal is final. On the other hand, the conscientious objector can go from one tribunal to an appellate tribunal. I had hoped that while the National Service (Armed Forces) Act was being amended the ordinary person called up for military service would be put in the same favourable position as the conscientious objector. I had also hoped that he would be allowed to be represented in his appeal in the same way as the conscientious objector is represented. I hope that even on the Committee stage it may be possible to put the ordinary person in the same favourable position as the conscientious objector.
Coming to the Bill itself, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill rather condemned himself because he said that 4,000 members of the Auxiliary Fire Service had been released from the Services within recent months, and it seems to me that to a considerable extent the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the need for the introduction of this Bill. He did not tell us how many members of the Civil Defence Services were still remaining in the Forces, but the mere fact that 4,000of them have been released at the


request of the local authorities is an admission that something has gone wrong. I want to put this point merely from the point of view of expense. It takes a long time to train an auxiliary fireman. It requires a great deal of skill and involves a great deal of expense. After a man has been trained as an efficient fireman, rescue worker or other Defence worker at the expense of the public, he is called up, and he is then lost to Civil Defence. I hope that at any rate there will be an end to the calling-up from the Civil Defence Services of men who are fully trained and efficient and giving perfect satisfaction. It is quite on the cards that while men will be drafted on to the local authorities for Civil Defence purposes, others who are fully trained may be called up at the same time.
Nevertheless, it is inevitable that my right hon. Friend should be given the powers for which he asks. It is clear, and well known, that a large number of local authorities are short of essential personnel in the Civil Defence Services, and they are having difficulty in making up their numbers. This appears to be in the last resort one of the methods which will have to be employed to secure the necessary numbers. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to the House that it will be only in the last resort, and that he will, even at this late stage, employ other methods to secure the men he needs. In the first place, I would ask him whether he would endeavour to prevail upon the Services and upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service to release all trained Civil Defence workers who are still in the Services and who are willing to go back to Civil Defence. I know that under the provisions of this Bill they cannot be compelled to go, but if they wish to go, I would like him to ensure that every facility will be given to those men to go back.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has taken powers to compel part-time service in Civil Defence for persons who are not eligible for military service. He has not made any regulations, but he has power to do so, and there is throughout the country a very strong feeling that men over military age who are not playing their full part in the Civil Defence Services in this country should have a measure of com-

pulsion put upon them, and that that should be done before other men of military age are compelled to give their full time in Civil Defence. Thirdly, I would ask him whether he cannot secure the men that he wants by a re-arrangement of the personnel of the Civil Defence Services in the various areas. My right hon. Friend has referred to a shortage of personnel in certain of the Civil Defence Services, but I am satisfied that in other Civil Defence Services there is a redundancy of personnel. I am satisfied that many of the various war establishments are far too high. In the early stages of the war it was contemplated that casualties would be very much higher than they have proved to be, and, of course, we can congratulate ourselves upon that fact. I think it is most unlikely that our casualties can ever approach the figures which were originally contemplated. Nevertheless, some of the Services were established on the basis of dealing with the numbers of casualties which were originally expected. Although in some cases there has been a reduction in the authorised personnel, that reduction has not gone very far, and it is a fact that in some places, in some of the Services, there is a redundancy in personnel which could be transfered to other Services where there is a shortage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explore that position and ascertain to what extent that can be done, before he employs the powers which are being conferred upon him by this Bill.
My hon. Friend who opened the discussion from this side of the House said that we were introducing a new principle by this Bill, but I think he must have overlooked the fact that the Armed Forces have actually been employed on many occasions on Civil Defence work, particularly in London. We have had many thousands of members of the Armed Forces engaged in the clearance of debris. We have had men all over the country assisting in the rescue services, giving first aid and even, I believe, in some cases, undertaking police work. So that my right hon. Friend is not introducing any new principle in calling upon men who have been going to the Fighting Services for use in Civil Defence.
Reference has been made to difficulties which might arise in men conscripted under the Military Service Act working side by side with volunteers, but I think


those difficulties are more imaginary than real, because, in fact, whatever we may say about volunteers, most of the men who are now in the Civil Defence Services are conscripts. My right hon. Friend has made an Order by which they are not allowed to leave the service of the local authorities but are compelled to remain in their present jobs. Therefore, there are many who are in the same position as men who have been called up under the National Service Act. I do not anticipate any difficulty arising from these men working side by side.
In introducing the Measure, the Minister of Labour and National Service stated that it would be necessary in certain cases to send men away from home, and that in those cases they would be given a subsistence allowance of not more than 24s. 6d. per week. I would like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a difficulty which I imagine may arise, namely, the question of billeting. As he knows, they will at times be sent to congested districts, and the Bill contains no provision—and I do not know whether any provision will be made by my right hon. Friend—to ensure that these men are properly billeted. I rather gather that they will be left to find accommodation for themselves. If that is the case, the possibility will exist of their being exploited, of being overcharged, of having to live under unsuitable conditions, and generally of having to live in such a way that their services will not be satisfactory. I hope my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to requisition living accommodation, nor to ensure that they are not overcharged for it—indeed, to see that they are treated in the same way as men who are called up for service in the Armed Forces. Soldiers are frequently billeted, but they do not have to go around and look for accommodation themselves, nor do they have to enter into bargains with their landladies as to the amount they will have to pay. All that is done for them by the Army, and I hope that the men who join the Civil Defence Services instead of the Army will be treated in the same way.
The Bill provides that men will be allowed to express a preference, not only for Civil Defence as against the Armed Forces, but for a particular section or branch of the Civil Defence Services. There is, however, nothing in the Bill which provides that if they are sent away,

they will necessarily be put into the particular section for which they have expressed a preference, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, if a man does express a preference for a particular section of the Civil Defence Services, he will be allowed to joint that section, or whether he may be transferred to carry out any work other than that for which he has expressed a preference.
Then I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain something which seems to me to be inexplicable, in relation to Clause 3 Sub-section (I, e and f). Subsection (I, e) says:
he shall …perform the duties of a member of the Civil Defence force with which he is serving for the time being, …
and paragraph (f) says:
he shall perform such further duties as may … be required of him …
I would like to know what those further duties are. I should have thought that Sub-section (I. e) was all-embracing and quite sufficient to require the man to do what may be required of him, and that the phrase "such further duties" is rather mysterious. The Bill is not self-explanatory, and one wonders whether my right hon. Friend has got something up his sleeve which has not been explained to the House, and which will give him additional powers about which the House knows nothing. I would not, of course, suggest for a moment that my right hon. Friend would deliberately attempt to mislead the House, but this appears to give him mysterious powers which have not so far been explained.
Under the same Clause the members of the Civil Defence Services who are conscripted in this way are given certain privileges relating to relief in respect of liabilities for rent and so on, and I would like to know why these same privileges cannot be given to other members of the Civil Defence Services who have been prevented by my right hon. Friend's Order from leaving those Services. Are they not in exactly the same position as a man who has been conscripted under this Bill? I hope there will not be too much differentiation between the man who is conscripted and the other man who is in the Service and is not allowed to leave it, because the latter is virtually a conscript. I hope no privileges will be given to one over the other.
This Bill will, of course, be largely operated by the local authorities, whose staff will be given greatly increased work. Everybody knows that local authorities are having great difficulty in maintaining their staffs, but at the same time as this increased work is being put upon them the age of reservation is being raised, so that they will have a substantial number of men called up for service. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to put some pressure on the Minister of Labour and National Service so that the local authorities' staffs will not be depleted at a time when they are having additional duties put upon them. I can assure him that a real difficulty is facing some local authorities, particularly in London, and if he desires this Measure to be carried out to his satisfaction, he must make sure that the necessary administrative staff is available.
So far, the Civil Defence Services have not proved to be popular among the men who have been called up for service. As the Minister of Labour and National Service stated in his opening remarks, the number of men who have taken advantage of the option to join the Civil Defence Services instead of the other services has been relatively small, and I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend does not want to press men unwillingly and grudgingly into this service. It is essential that the spirit of the men should be maintained. They must be made to regard themselves as part of the Fighting Services. I hope my right hon. Friend will do all he can to maintain their spirit. The man who is forced to join the Civil Defence Services must have no feeling of inferiority in regard to his friend and colleague who joins the Armed Forces. These men must be inspired with a sense of self-respect and dignity; they must feel that the work they are doing is worth while work and is part of the battle which this country is waging against the enemy. Materially, they will probably not be very much worse off, if at all, than members of the Armed Forces, and I should like to know what will be done to make this service a self-respecting service equal in status to the other Fighting Services.
I would suggest one thing, small perhaps in itself, but which I think may be rather important. Why not give these

men a uniform? At the present time there is one type of uniform in the Auxiliary Fire Service, no uniform for the warden, another uniform for the police, an overall or something for the rescue squads. and other types of garments for different branches of the services. Why not give the Civil Defence worker a uniform of his own? There is nothing like a uniform to make a man proud of the Service to which he belongs. Another thing is that there must be an opportunity for promotion. The men in the Civil Defence Services must not be allowed to feel that" once a Civil Defence worker, always a Civil Defence worker," is necessarily true. We pride ourselves on the fact that every soldier carries a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. I want to know what the Civil Defence worker is going to carry in his gas-mask case. I feel that unless he is allowed to carry the equivalent of a field marshal s baton, this service will not be the success which my right hon. Friend hopes that it will be. We all wish this Bill well, and we hope that it will make speedy progress. We hope that it will not have to be used very much, but the whole House agrees that it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have removed myself from the Opposition Front Bench to-day, while making these remarks, in order to show clearly that I am in a minority in criticising this Bill. I have been in this House for some years, and I have noted certain doubtful tendencies in Bills that come before Parliament recently. The House will forgive me if I strike a note that may not please some Members; in the House of Commons, however, everyone should express what he feels.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1.Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1941.
2.Air-Raid (Precautions) (Postponement of Financial Investigation) Act, 1941.
3.Determination of Needs Act, 1941.


4.War Damage Act, 1941.
5.Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1941.
6.Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Shipley) Act, 1941.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Rhys Davies: Just before I was interrupted, I was about to say that I have always conceived it my duty, whenever the occasion occurred, to try to limit compulsion by the State upon any section of the community. I have been a trade union official for 35 years, and it has fallen to my lot to do all I could to prevent compulsion by employers upon the workers with whom I am connected. Since the war commenced we have had several forms of compulsion, including conscription for the Navy, Army and Air Force, and the other day we passed industrial conscription for women. It has recently been suggested by a Select Committee of the House of Commons that coal miners might be conscripted and moved from one place to another. Now this Bill conscripts certain sections of the people for Civil Defence. I always thought that we were living in a country where people would do better work under a voluntary system than if they were compelled. I still believe that to be the case; the majority of our people will do voluntarily for their country that which they will not under compulsion.
This Bill deals with conscientious objectors, and my hon. friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) propounded a strange theory on this matter, but let us be certain that, in spite of what my hon. Friend said, the Bill puts conscientious objectors in a worse position than they were under the original Act. Although the Minister of Labour said that a conscientious objector is not to be conscripted as a policeman, if I am to read the English language the Bill means that a conscientious objector in a certain category will be conscripted to be a War Reserve policeman, and of course, if he is a policeman, he may be called upon to quell riots and break strikes. When the hon. Member talks about tribunals deciding this or that, let me remind him that in the long history of the human race no tribunal has ever been able to

override a man's conscience. Men have died at the stake and have been crucified for their conscientious beliefs, and there are people in this country, I suppose, who will not submit to any tribunal or any law in a matter of conscience, whether they be Catholics, Protestants, Non-Conformists, Quakers or any other persuasion. Not very long ago I stood on a mount called Calvary where the greatest of my hon. Friend's noble race died for conscience, and not all the power of the Roman Empire could alter His attitude. He preferred to die for his conscience rather than submit to the rule of the tribunals of the Romans.

Mr. Pickthorn: He did not claim to be exempted.

Mr. Davies: If any hon. Member can prove to me that the Saviour who died on Calvary 2000 years ago would join the British, French, German or Italian armies at any time, I would never darken the door of a Christian church again. Let me, however, return to the Bill. The Bill deals with other than the problem of conscience. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply two or three questions. First of all, when the Minister of Labour was introducing the Bill, I asked whether those who are to be conscripted for Civil Defence will be allowed to join trade unions. He replied that those who are already trade unionists and who are to be conscripted for Civil Defence will be able to retain their membership of a trade union, The right hon. Gentleman, who knows more about trade unionism than most of us, knows that that was no answer to my question. Therefore, I ask again whether these people who are to be conscripted will be entitled to form a trade union for the purposes of dealing with the conditions of their employment in Civil Defence, and not merely to continue their membership of the trade union to which they happened to belong before they were conscripted.
Secondly, we are told that this Bill rather helps the conscientious objector. What do de find? There is a possibility in certain circumstances of a penalty of two years' imprisonment and a fine of£100 as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knows that the vast majority of these young men are members of the working class, and that a large number are probably mem-


bers of the Labour party. What is the use of telling a young man that his position is improved when that is what he is to expect if he stands up for his principles? Without putting the matter too strongly, it seems to me that this Bill is intended to break the spirit even of the most determined conscientious objector. That is one of the reasons I object to the Measure. However we look at it, we come back to the problem of the conscientious objector.
I was bred and born and brought up in a Nonconformist Sunday school atmosphere, and I cannot help supporting these people who have courage enough to say that they have a conscience against compulsory military or any other form of service. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) suggested that this Bill would suit conscientious objectors, inasmuch as they would not be compelled to fight, but could be accepted in the Civil Defence forces instead. Let me tell him this. If I understand these young fellows—they may be misguided, but all the world told the objectors and martyrs of all the ages that they were misguided—they do not merely object to going into the Fighting Services; they object to being compelled to do duty for the State at all. Of course, hon. Members will probably be staggered at that attitude. We do not get over the objection of this type by merely telling him that he will not be compelled to go into the Army, but that he will be compelled to go into the Civil Defence forces instead. What are the Civil Defence forces? As I have said, he may be pushed into being a policeman.

Mr. H. Morrison: Mr. H. Morrison :indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: I will read Clause 3 to the Right hon. Gentleman, where it states:
''A person who is deemed by virtue of Subsection (4) of the last foregoing Section to have been taken into the service of the Crown shall be deemed 
And then it says:
if that force is the police war reserve.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot argue on the text of the Bill. I shook my head in the negative because I have no intention of calling up conscientious objectors to the use of violence to serve in the police force. It would not suit me.

Mr. Davies: Perhaps then we should get that point made clear in the Bill itself. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what it was that made it necessary to bring this Bill forward to deal with conscientious objectors. There are not many of them, and I do not know the number to be covered by this Bill—it would be very interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us. I have never understood Government Departments at all on this issue. If a man is forced against his will into any one of these Services, I am almost certain he will be more of a nuisance inside than outside. The same thing applies in every walk of life. I raise these objections, not merely because of what the Bill does in itself, but because, if we pass conscription for the Forces, conscript women for industry, and conscript people for Civil Defence, I wonder how long we shall be before we shall conscript engineers, miners, shop-workers and dock labourers. Exactly the same arguments will be pressed in due course in respect of every category of the working classes I have mentioned, as has been put forward in favour of this proposal. I am sorry that I have struck what may be a discordant note in the proceedings from this side of the House, but I trust hon. Members will forgive me for saying once again that this House of Commons would not be worth calling together unless every individual Member spoke exactly as he felt; and I trust that I have done that.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I think I can leave my right hon. Friend to deal with the questions raised by the last speaker. I prefer to take the view of the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey), who described on behalf of his own faith the very wise administration which has accompanied not only the Ministry of Home Security but the working of the Armed Forces Act, in connection with conscientious objectors in this war. I should like to put in a plea, however, for one particular body with whom I have come in contact, and that is the Friends' Ambulance Unit. These are members of the community who have been in the front line and have shown the Civil Defence Services, in many cases in their model shelters and rest centres, excellent examples of what can be done by those who do not agree with the actual prosecution of war. I hope they will be allowed


to remain as a unit. I have risen to ask one or two questions, some of which have been asked already in some form or other by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon)and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). I wish the Minister of Home Security had actually presented the Bill. Many of the questions that we are asking could have been answered in the opening speech, because many of the details are concerned with the actual arrangements in the Civil Defence forces rather than the question of conscientious objection, or the reservation of labour, or the balance of forces coming within the scope of the Ministry of Labour.
I should like to ask one basic question. What is the purpose of this Bill at this time? Is it the case that certain parts of the country cannot produce enough A.F.S. workers? It was known to some of us, and no doubt to my right hon. Friend, six months ago that there was a shortage. It is not for me to say where. Indeed 4,000 had to be returned from the Army, according to the Minister of Labour. I presume that meant men who were trained in this particular work, were then sent off to do I do not know what in the Army, and now have been brought back. That is not the most economical way of using man-power at the present time. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Peckham is right. Are the men who are now enlisted under local authorities, in effect, conscripted? The hon. Member said there was no great difference between them and this new body. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make that clear, because they will be working side by side. We have had three speakers with great experience of London but I am thinking of my own constituency, where we have a very excellent Civil Defence Force, though perhaps it has not been deeply tested yet. Are we to get another body thrown in—a sort of national mobile squad? Is that the conception? Is it not happening in some areas under the regional administration, that you have people transferred from one part of a region to another by the Regional Commissioners? Is not that mobility possible without a fresh Bill? If it is just a case of shortage of men, there are other questions that I should like to ask.
I repeat the question—for what services is this Force required? Is it

mainly for the Auxiliary Fire Service? In regard to first aid and the Police War Reserve, is it not possible to have more interchangeability? In the early days we were faced with this problem in medical-aid posts and shelters. A number of people thought that the first-aid posts under the Ministry of Health could have been moved into shelters. They had been standing by for a long time and there was the difficulty of moving them from one place to another. It seemed to me that here was a case where we could have moved people who were doing roughly the same sort of work, from one part of the Civil Defence service to another. I should like to stress a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. This service has grown up largely owing to the interest taken in it by one or two hon. Members, including the Joint Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Mabane). I cannot profess to be one of them because I was absorbed in another Department. It has, however, grown up haphazard and bits have been added to it. It has reached a point at which we have to be extremely careful about it. It has great prestige. Ministers and others constantly refer to the valuable work of the A.F.S. Why, then, is there a shortage? Has it quite the prestige that it ought to have and will the wearing of a common uniform help or not?
Again, under whose control will this new force be? Will it be under the Minister of Home Security and at his disposal? If so, it is a slightly new development. Will there be an A.F.S. commander in charge? Will it be a national squad, compulsorily conscripted, serving with the voluntary arm? If so, a considerable number of questions will arise unless they are put on the same terms of service as those who originally joined. Will the discipline be the same? What will the age limits be? If there is an absence of training for first-aid, fire-watching and the rest, would my right hon. Friend take a little more seriously the Civil Defence Cadet Unit? I know that he has given some recognition to it in Liverpool, but it deserves more than that. It would be of great assistance if we could have people fully trained by the time they are 18 and if we were able to bring in lads, who are dying to do the job. It is no good saying that the Cadet Unit is just due to Professor Channon and the Lord Mayor of Liver-


pool. They have done a great deal to bring it to its present position; Professor Channon has taken it on in addition to his other work and has worked hard 12 hours a day. But other cities are anxious to do the same thing by their youth. I should like to see one in London. In fact, I have been trying to get one started, but my evidence is that in Bermondsey and elsewhere the young people are half in and half out of Civil Defence and would be only too pleased if someone would come along to organise them. They could get their first-aid instruction from a variety of people and physical training from the police.
I think we have to see where all this is leading. I regard the four Services as on something of a level, and I should like to see some training for people in Civil Defence, because that gives them a feeling that they are doing a real job instead of an imitation job. The other night I was opening a little shelter, the first of its kind, for a club. The boys had their own "spotters" and the proceedings were very real, because twice during the ceremony we "had to postpone things as there were aeroplanes overhead. They were taking part in something which was real and not make-believe. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to wait till a city has taken the initiative—in peace time that would probably be the best method—but to send out some instructions saying that this is a good thing in itself and actively encouraging the formation of other branches of the Civil Defence cadet units.
One further point was raised by the hon. Member for Peckham. Is there to be a preference for particular parts of the Civil Defence services? I should like my right hon. Friend to explain that this is not just a sort of patchwork policy, but that he has the whole picture in his mind, that from his far greater vision of the whole state of the country he is convinced that this compulsory measure is needed, that it will do nothing to injure this great voluntary service, and that it is part of a larger conception of the best use of manpower and woman-power in the country. I ask that because a number of people are saying:" What does this mean? Is this another little piece added? "Civil Defence Cadet Units have an armlet and a beret, others may have some uniform

—and so it goes on. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) referred to our" rapidly shrinking liberties. "Here we have a charter of new responsibility. We are gradually entering a state where more and more things are being done for us. Someone has christened it a Santa Claus state. The time is coming when every man and woman must give back some service for the privilege of living in this country, in peace as well as war.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wish to ask a small and rather tiresome House of Commons question. I ought perhaps to know the answer, but I am not clear about it. Clause I of the Bill deals with the people to whom the Act, when it is an Act, will apply, and, leaving out the unnecessary words, it provides as follows: ''Every person who is liable under the National Service Act shall be liable under this new Act." The question which I am not clear about, falls into two parts. The first is: —Are Members of Parliament liable under the National Service Act? If they are not, then, clearly, they will not be, under this Bill, and my second question will not arise.
If the answer to my first question is "Yes," I wish to put the second question: Ought Members of Parliament to be liable under the Bill? I do not assert very positively what should be the answer to the second question. My personal inclination is to believe that the answer should be "No." When it is a question of fighting service for a man's country, any sort of fighting service, even in the humblest capacity and even in a tactical situation of the utmost insignificance, is a service of dignity and elevation which ought to come before any other service, even service of this honourable House; but I do not feel nearly so sure that that is true of any service short of fighting service. I do not want to be understood as in the least asking for exemption, or privilege for myself or hon. Members who are my colleagues, but it seems to me that either this place should be shut up altogether, or we ought to have the courage to take it for granted that service in this House is the most important of all non-fighting services and is a whole-time service, at any rate for any hon. Member who chooses to make it so for himself.
An hon. Member said the other clay: "After all, what is it that Members of the House of Commons do?" Keenly conscious as we all must be of each other's deficiencies, I think each of us ought to assume that there are matters of importance to be attended to by Members of Parliament. It would be most unfortunate if we should pass a Bill which would have the effect of making it appear that, in the opinion of this House itself, services which, however honourable and however dangerous even, must be in some sense minor service, should take precedence of full participation in the proceedings of this House, and in Parliamentary work, both when the House is sitting and when it is not sitting. There are many things which Members of Parliament should be doing, even if they are not actually in Westminster. If I may sum up without repeating myself excessively, I would be very grateful to be told the exact position at the moment and whether, if the position is that, without amendment, the Bill would apply to Members of Parliament, we may hope that the position will be reconsidered at the next stage of the proceedings?

Mr. David Adams: I am glad of the opportunity of supporting "his Measure. I have been cordially in favour of compulsion in the matter of this service, since it was initiated. My experience in the North of England has been, until quite recently, that the work has been done by a few hundreds of persons for the benefit of many thousands, their safety, comfort and general enjoyment. There is no difficulty in having demonstrations and large gatherings to witness the labours of other people, but as for participating in the responsibilities, that is another matter. I can put those who are interested in this side of the matter in touch with any quantity of detail. The Bill arouses the criticism of hon. Members who have been declaiming against another phase of compulsion, but what is clear to anyone acquainted with great centres of population is that the voluntary system failed long ago in this matter. The complaint which I have from wardens and section leaders in regard to Civil Defence relates to their inability to give orders. It becomes a matter of politeness, supplemented by certain social amenities and advantages, and tea-drinkings. It is not a service that is

carried out as if the defence of this State were involved. It is looked upon very largely as a rather pleasurable occupation for those who are local super-patriots.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the reason for the breakdown of the voluntary method is the fact that these local super-patriots have been anxious to keep out anybody whose political opinions they do not like?

Mr. Adams: In the part of England to which I refer a cordial welcome would be given to the most ardent Communist. The fact that it has been necessary to comb out the Services for persons skilled in this work clearly indicates the necessity for this Measure. I am glad to notice that it is to be termed a regional or national reserve, as persons may be drafted elsewhere. It has been one of my complaints that those who have had experience of bombing have not been brought to districts which have had no such experience. That ought to have been part of the principle and organisation of this Service, because in parts of the country that I could particularise we have still the most antiquated measures in practice, such as rescues from a four-storey building and so forth, carried out by persons who have no knowledge or experience of the modern situations arising out of an attack by the enemy. Therefore, good experience should be obtained, and those responsible at the Ministry itself ought to see that there is this exchange which is so urgently necessary at the time. The Minister has indicated a broad and generous outlook, inasmuch as those who are to be conscripted are to be adequately remunerated for their service, and proper provision is being made for injury and sickness. I am not satisfied that the sickness period should be for 13 weeks only, but probably in Committee that can be amended, and no doubt the Minister will take the matter into serious consideration by that time.
The Minister mentioned that while this will be a national force it will be loaned to the local authorities, but generally under the Regional Commissioners. I hope that nothing will be done to weaken the authority of the municipalities. They have been largely responsible for the organisation. As far as my experience goes, the Regional Commissioners have done relatively little, and we must be very careful


to preserve that touch with the local community which has been so successful up to date. I see no difficulty for a considerable time to come in conscripts and volunteers working side by side. I think there will be general agreement, and a sense of relief on the part of these voluntary workers, that the conscripts have come in now and share the burden of their duties which long ago they ought to have undertaken.
I think that the House has shown great tolerance to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in his long disquisition upon the advantages and the situation generally of the conscientious objector in the State. One would imagine from his attacks upon the Labour party as such, and particularly upon the members of the Labour party in the Government, that they had been committing some new offence against the community. But as a matter of fact the law which we as a party supported was enlightened; it was in harmony, in my judgment, with the very best thought of the present time, and all that the hon. Member complained about was the action of the tribunals. We are not responsible for the tribunals; we lament as much as he does their harshness and tyranny, which have been protested against by our Members in the House. I am sorry to say that we still have a certain complaint against the local authorities to which we have called attention in the matter of conscientious objectors. In the North, during the last three weeks, persons have been expelled from their posts because they are conscientious objectors. That is a wholly reprehensible attitude of mind, and no one has protested against it more than the Minister of Labour, who is being dragged into this conscientious objection argument against his will, and, in my judgment, without any justice whatsoever.
We are told that the new Measure may make a change for the conscientious objector. But surely the tribunal is there as before, and no conscientious objector will be called upon to undertake service to which he conscientiously objects. The situation is the same as it was under the National Service Acts. Trade unionism, happily, is to be preserved and not weakened, and that is a valuable concession. It may be objected that that makes

for the creation of a labour front. I do not agree with that view. I believe in the maintenance of trade unionism; the presence of quite a number of Members of this House who are trade unionists, but who are no longer working at their trades, is of valuable assistance to the trade union movement and tends to keep Parliament in touch with that movement. Had there been any weakening of the movement in this Measure I should have been extremely sorry.
There are certain phases of the Measure which I think would be better discussed and improved during the Committee stage. Suffice it to say that I am grateful to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Home Security for introducing it. I do not see in it any departure from the established principles which we have laid down in the House for the purpose of winning this war. I express my personal gratitude to those volunteers who have done so much on behalf of the community since war broke out, and I am glad that those who have hung back are now to be politely invited by the State to play the part of men and women in this critical hour.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: I think the Minister can be congratulated on having introduced a Bill which deals with this great problem in the way he has done. At the same time, I wish one could feel that this Measure is the last piece of Totalitarianism we are going to have. We are drifting very fast towards a state of things with which we do not all agree. One is bound to recognise that it is very necessary to get rid of the difficulty over non-combatant service, particularly as, even to-day, very strong pressure is being brought to bear upon men who have been allocated by the tribunals to non-combatant service, in order to induce them to withdraw their objection to combatant service. I say that advisedly. I am glad this Bill prevents that.
There are at present between 15,000 and 20,000 men who have received unconditional or conditional exemption. If I understand it correctly, the Bill proposes that such cases are to be referred now to the local authorities. If that is so, I suggest that there is great danger, because a large number of these local


authorities have defied the Act of Parliament, and have penalised conscientious objectors in their service. Such men have been cruelly dismissed, simply because they arc conscientious objectors. A case occurred, not very far from here, in which a man who has been a cripple all his life, and who might have got exemption on the ground of his disability, but who put in a claim to be registered as a conscientious objector, has been dismissed. That case by no means stands alone. If a man fails to appear for medical examination, or to carry out any of the conditions imposed upon him, he is to be penalised. That being so, will the Minister seriously consider some penalty for those local authorities which defy the Act of Parliament? If you are going to impose penalties in one case, there is surely no reason why yon should not in the other. Those local authorities have scarcely treated this matter as Parliament intended them to, and I do not know why they should be allowed to continue their defiance of Parliament.
The men who are registered are to be told the service in which they have been enrolled. There is, of course, an element of compulsion about that. Will the Minister consider giving these people a clear statement of the various forms of service which they would have a chance of performing? I think it would be infinitely better for them to have some such list or something of that sort and to have the opportunity of expressing their willingness to volunteer for these Services than simply saying, "You are to go into such and such a service." The more the voluntary principle can be applied, the better it will be, and I hope the Minister will give that matter his consideration.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The House has been exceedingly friendly on the whole about the terms, purpose and general nature of this Bill, and I would like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, myself and His Majesty's Government our thanks for the friendly way in which the House has received the Bill and the spirit of cooperation with which Members are animated in considering it. I am glad that this is so, because it is a matter of some urgency that this Bill should become law. Therefore, I hope very much that when we come to the Committee and

Report stages the same admirable spirit will be displayed as has been displayed to-day, and that we shall get through those stages of the Bill with speed, so that we can soon have the Measure upon the Statute Book. A whole series of points, naturally, have been raised by hon. Members, and it will perhaps be well if, first, I deal as far as I can with those that have not been dealt with already. My right hon. Friend is more familiar with his Clauses of the Bill than with mine, and it will naturally be the case that I shall be more familiar with my Clauses than with his.
In the course of the discussion the point was raised both in the speech of my right hon. Friend, and in the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) — who, I am sorry, is not now in his place—of the rights of persons called up for Civil Defence to continue to be, or to become members of a trade union. The position, as I explained earlier, is that a person called up can retain membership of his trade union. He can if he likes join a trade union while he is a member of the Civil Defence forces, and there are unions of which Civil Defence workers are members. Some of them belong to associations or unions which are not registered trade unions. In fact, at the Ministry of Home Security, during the time of myself and my predecessor, we have freely consulted with the Consultative Committee of Trades Unions who have members in these services, and that practice will continue, whether the personnel is conscript or voluntary in character.
As I indicated in the course of an intervention earlier, the fact must be faced that this is a disciplined service and, therefore, things that can happen in industry, at any rate in peace time, cannot be contemplated as happening in these vital public services in the midst of war. Everybody understands that; and, of course, separate considerations do arise in the case of the police, which is a highly disciplined force. When a man has joined the Police War Reserve and is already a member of a trade union, it has been laid down that we do not wish to interfere with the continuation of that trade union membership. Other matters were raised at the same time, but they will, I think, arise later.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Camber well (Mr. Ammon) put to the


Government a series of points for their consideration. He asked what numbers we contemplated calling up? If he does not mind, I prefer not to give any indication of the figure, but let me put the point in this way, because other questions have been put which rather bear upon it, including the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) — who is also not in his place—whether the voluntary principle had broken down. The hon. Member rather implied that this Bill was an admission of the failure of voluntary recruitment. I do not admit that for one moment. I think the amazing success of this Civil Defence force on a voluntary basis is one of the greatest things in history. It is an astonishingly large force and when my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was Lord Privy Seal and started the active stages of recruitment for this great army, I very much doubt whether he assumed that he would get as quickly as he did such an enormous number of people into this great force. It was organised by local authorities, associated with the Regional organisation. I suppose this force numbers between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000. In addition, we have the fire bomb fighters and I am not sure whether, if we were to add these fire bomb fighters, we would not have a Civil Defence army of about3,000,000 in this country, all voluntarily recruited.
There are also the voluntary parties in the industrial establishments in their passive defence organisations. It is an amazing achievement of voluntary service based upon public spirit and when I think of the cheap dictators of Europe with their cheap talk, trying to put before the world the ideas of British degeneracy, that the British spirit has broken down and of the inability and incapacity of democracy to be alive and defend itself, I say that the existence of this vast voluntary army of Civil defence people is a devastating and conclusive answer. British democracy, so far from being degenerate is live, vigorous, on its feet, is proud of itself and will so remain.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Consett, who was not up to his usual standard of cheerful optimism. In fact, he was a little on the dreary side. This Bill has not been brought in because the voluntary principle has failed; it

has been brought in because circumstances have changed, and pressure upon manpower is becoming acute. There is pressure upon the supply of men for the Armed Forces and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in association with the Supply Ministries, is conducting a campaign for men and women for war factories. There are also all the other diverse claims upon the energies and labour of our people. But there is difficulty in certain parts of the country in filling some of the gaps which have arisen in the Civil Defence army and, therefore, we are at the point when we must exercise compulsory powers, not in order to provide enormous numbers of people, but to fill certain gaps which must be filled. As far as I can see, the numbers we shall require to conscript under this Bill will represent a relatively small percentage of the Civil Defence Army.
It will not be a very large number, but it will be the number essential to fill up gaps that must be filled if the organisation is to function in a proper way. Of course, it will be realised that a very large proportion of the Civil Defence services of 3,000,000 or more is part-time, voluntary, and unpaid. I do not want to say a word or do a thing that will kill the spirit of voluntary, unpaid public service. The democracy of our country owes a great deal to it, and our democracy will be a poor thing when nobody will do anything for the public interest unless he gets something out of it. I have travelled about the country, to South Wales and to Durham, for instance, poor areas where the people have had a rough time and where poverty has been the rule rather than the exception. I have seen there a Civil Defence organisation based, as to quite 90 per cent. of it, on unpaid voluntary service. That is to the credit of the public spirit of those areas and other areas of the country, including great rural tracts of the country. I am proud that this is so. The last thing that the Government would wish is that this Bill should in any way have the effect of casting discredit on the voluntary principle limiting future voluntary service, or undermining the great spirit of voluntary public service to which the country owes so much.
We want this Bill merely for the purpose of filling up the gaps in the full-time


Civil Defence services in the light of the highly co-ordinated, but highly competitive, time in which we live as far as the demand for labour power is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is living a great life, with plenty of worries because of the competitive world in which necessarily he lives, with the varied demands for labour power of one sort and another. He has to do the best he can to give us all what we want, and to keep us sweet and happy and himself alive. I hope he succeeds as time goes on. Therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell asks whether we are not starting a conflict between the voluntary principle and the principle of compulsion, my reply is that I do not think we are. I think that the two will live together happily in what is becoming the great civic army of the nation to protect the people against aerial attack and deal with its consequences. To the question whether we shall eat into the reserved occupations, my answer is "No." My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour from time to time reviews the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. Once he has decided upon the reserved occupations, clearly one service cannot eat into them, for otherwise the reservation would be destroyed.

Mr. Lindsay: Are the Civil Defence services on the same footing as the other services?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, they are on the same general footing. All the Civil Defence Services are not now wholly protected, but many of them are, and my right hon. Friend is always willing to consider claims on their merits. With regard to the preference which a person who is called up may have for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, Civil Defence, and, if for Civil Defence, for which part of it, I understand that the Ministry of Labour will make the very best provision they can— and certainly we would wish to co-operate to that end—to give the potential compelled recruit the widest possible choice. Clearly, if a man wishes to be in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or Civil Defence, if we can conveniently put him where he would like to be, it is common sense and in the national interest so to do. The same applies within the various branches of Civil Defence. But it may be that the people who want to go into a given service will be more than that

service wants; then, it will be too bad, but we shall have to put the men somewhere else. As far as it is administratively practicable to respect a preference, we would wish to do so.
There has been some misunderstanding—and I make no complaint about it—as to who are the employers and directors of this new personnel. They are deemed under the Bill to be in the service of the Crown. That brings to them some slight advantage, but it also brings the disadvantage that they can be moved about at the will of the Minister of Home Security to any part of the country. If they are so moved, they can obtain a subsistence allowance; but they are deemed to be in the service of the Crown. As regards their day-to-day employment, they are posted to a given local authority, and wherever possible to the local authority where they live. Technically they go into the employment of that local authority, but they are in the service of the Crown, although they are subject to direction and discipline in precisely the same way as any other member of the Civil Defence Forces—that is to say full-time volunteers. Their basis is the same except that, if for reasons of strategy or need, it becomes expedient to move them to any part of the country, I can move them and so can the Regional Commissioner. That is the only difference.
It may well be that other existing full-time volunteer personnel may wish to acquire this status of service under the Crown. Indeed I hope that that will be so. I rather want this service to become civic and local as well as national in character. It may well be that they will wish to transfer to the service of the Crown. We shall encourage that, because it gives more mobility, and the more mobility I get the more I shall like it. I do not think those who are outside the Military Service ages can do so, although I shall be delighted if I find that I am wrong. I imagine that there will be some pressure from these people as time goes on, and to meet their wishes, further legislation would be necessary. As far as I am concerned I am quite sympathetic to the idea. In the course of time we shall make this a Crown service in co-operation with local authorities, and without damaging the local spirit, or rights of local authorities. Any penalties for disobeying an order, or leaving with-


out permission, will be penalties provided according to the civil code. These men will not come under King's Regulations or military law; they will be under the civil authorities.
If I utilise the services of some of them —I am not sure about it, but I merely contemplate it as a possibility—as a regional mobile reserve, it will be a limited number, and they will be always ready to go here and there according to the needs of the situation. If so, they will be, in fact, and in substance, and all the time, in the service of the Crown under the jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner. If we create a national reserve these men will be in the service of the Crown under the Minister of Home Security. The Bill will permit that to be done. It is a developing service which has to be thought over anew as time goes on. One wants adaptability and mobility. The charm, the fundamental value of this organisation, which my right hon. Friend the Lord President fashioned, bringing in the local authority, the Regional Commissioners and the State, is its adaptability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peck-ham (Mr. Silkin) raised some points. He, like others, has considerable experience of this matter from the angle of the local authority. He raised the point whether in the case of conscientious objectors, there could not be an appeal from a hardships committee to some form of appeal tribunal. This is Ministry of Labour business and I cannot give an answer or I might be in a demarcation dispute with my right hon. Friend, but the point will have been noted. I am sure my right hon. Friend will give it consideration and, no doubt, communicate with the hon. Member.
As regards returns from the Army, it is not contemplated that men will be sent to the Army one week and a few weeks after transferred to Civil Defence. There have been some returns from the Army owing to the fact that in earlier days men were taken out of Civil Defence because it was thought they could be dispensed with. That was in the quieter days when there was much foolish and nonsensical thinking about Civil Defence. Some people thought that, because things were quiet, they would always be quiet. I hope they recognise now when they hear the noises, that they were wrong. We

have got back a good many of those people who in many cases in the light of experience ought not to have been taken out. Under this Bill, it will be the normal thing that, if a man goes into the Army, Navy, Air Force or Civil Defence, he will stay there. I will keep in mind—indeed we have acted upon—the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham, whether in particular grades there might be a surplus of Civil Defence personnel as well as a shortage in others. The Regional Commissioners have been instructed to watch that and, if we find such cases, it will be our duty to reduce them, or transfer the surplus to some other branch of Civil Defence. With regard to billeting, I recognise that when an industrial worker is transferred, his earnings may be substantially more than the fixed earnings of these men will be. These men will not be able to stand a landlady profiteering much, but we will watch it in the light of experience—no doubt the Minister of Labour has some experience—and,if necessary, we will take action on the point. I am sure the House would support us in taking the view that the worst thing in the world that any landlady or lodging-house keeper could do, would be to exploit men who are engaging in this splendid service for the country.
Another hon. Member referred to Clause 3 (1), paragraphs (e) and (f), and he thought that perhaps paragraph (f) was not necessary. I am afraid it is. Again, I want elasticity and mobility. We have now, for instance, the categories of A.F.S., ambulance, rescue parties and decontamination service. Suppose I found that one service had not enough to do and another was not full up with work and wished to merge them, the men being trained in doing both things. In that case it would be a "further duty" upon the members of that service. It would be further training and a further qualification. It is necessary to have that kind of thing as well as movements from one local authority to another. I have noted what my hon. Friend said about uniforms. I have no objection at all to what he said. He and I were in a struggle a long time ago, and so was my right hon. Friend, about uniforms for ambulance people. He had his troubles then, as I know now. I have to be careful how far I go, but I am bound to say,


having seen—after they had been washed twice—some of the uniforms supplied to the fine women in the ambulance service, I am not too proud of them. I would like these people to have uniforms that really arc uniforms and which really give them that esprit de corps, self-respect and status that we want. I only ask in that respect that they should not be treated less beneficially than the Home Guard who got uniforms straight away without any trouble.
The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) raised a number of points which directly or indirectly affected conscientious objectors. One point, which was also in the mind of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Wilson), was that there are some people, in the Society of Friends, for example, and others, who arc already dangerously serving the country in some ambulance unit or another and in some voluntary way are tied up with the Civil Defence organisation. I cannot give firm undertakings about any of these cases; indeed, I think they are a matter for the Minister of Labour; but I should think that if it be the case that these people are already engaged in vital national service of that kind, that it is necessary that it should be done, and that in a broad spirit it is really part of the public service, I should consider it to be my duty to be sympathetic on the point which the hon. Member raised. I cannot go beyond that. We will take the point into consideration, and, I hope, not unsympathetically. With regard to what was said about medical examinations, I do not think that it arises unless a man resists the operation of the law. If he is ordered to be medically examined and he does not submit to it, proceedings will follow and he will probably be fined or sent to prison.

Mr. Harvey: I think that my right hon. Friend misunderstands my point. It is that repeated imprisonments for the same offence might occur in connection with failure to register and with observing other conditions. We might get the same position which arose during the last war, when a man was court-martialled and imprisoned five or six times for what really was one offence, that is, refusal to undertake military service.

Mr. Morrison: As I see it, Parliament would impose an obligation for service

and, leading up to that service, there would be a requirement for registration and medical examination. If a man failed to observe the law in that respect proceedings would follow and he would be fined, or imprisoned, or both. In due course he comes out of prison—if he went in—but the law continues to operate. He is still required to register or submit to medical examination, and if he does not he commits a new offence. I am afraid that is all I can say. That is the provsion in the Bill and that is the way in which it would work.

Mr. Maxton: The old "Cat and mouse" business.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) paid a well-deserved tribute to this very wide range of public services. As to his question whether a man called up for specifically Civil Defence can transfer to the armed services, the answer is "No." If he expressses a preference when called up we will do what we can for him, but in the end someone must decide what is necessary in the interest of the best use of manpower. In Cheltenham, where the hon. Member says the great bulk of those in the Civil Defence Services are unpaid, I should imagine, if that is so, that there will be little change; but if a shortage arose then under a new Defence Regulation, not under this Bill, we can exercise compulsion for part-time voluntary service if we wish to do so. Therefore, the whole field will now be covered, not only full-time service but part-time service as well. As to who is to decide what quota is to be allotted, that will be a matter for mutual agreement between the Ministry of Labour, the various Service Departments and the Ministry of Home Security.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) in his interesting speech asked, Why the delay? That is always a relevant question on every Bill. I think I have in part explained it on the basis that the voluntary service principle has been enormously successful, and that only in recent months with the developing labour shortage, that we have come up against difficulties. If I am asked frankly whether, when the Government brought in the Bill for compulsory military service at the beginning of the war, it would not have been logical to have included these provisions in that Bill, so as to get


a decision on compulsion over the whole field of what are all essentially Defence Services—because this Civil Defence is as important as the Army, Navy or Air Force—I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that Civil Defence should have been included at the time. But, on the other hand, the voluntary principle has worked with great success until these more difficult days have come.
Existing Civil Defence full-time voluntary personnel will not be conscript. They will continue to be volunteers, with this reservation, however, that we have in existence various "freezing Orders," as they are called, under which they cannot leave the employment they are in. Having voluntarily joined they cannot voluntarily leave. So the voluntary principle and conscription are mixed. But those volunteers will not be conscripts within the meaning of this Bill. They will not be called up under this Bill, because they are in the service. With regard to the position in Kilmarnock, we shall not throw in a national unit there. In so far as it is necesary to put some of the new men into Kilmarnock, when they are there they will be within the jurisdiction of the burgh of Kilmarnock, in substantially the same way as the other Civil Defence personnel.
In regard to the grades that are to be called up under the Bill, the proposal is first to fill vacancies in the Auxiliary Fire Service, wherever possible by local men who have expressed a preference for that Service. Next will come the filling of vacancies in the Police War Reserve, and after that in the first-aid and rescue parties, according to need, there always being a preference for local men. If we find that we have to go on to other services in the Civil Defence army, we shall do so, as and when it may become necessary or expedient. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked whether Members of Parliament are liable. The answer is that Members of Parliament were liable under the principal Act and that therefore they are automatically liable under the Bill. The position is that they are liable to be called up, but I gather from my observation of the House that commanding officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force are always considerate to Members of Parliament and endeavour to give them oppor-

tunity to perform their Parliamentary duties. We shall be no less considerate to them; but, legally, there is no doubt about their being liable.

Mr. Pickthorn: Under the Bill?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, under the Bill. They were liable for military service under the principal Act, and they are therefore liable under the Bill. I think I dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Consett. I agree with him about the preservation of local associations, and I assure him that I shall do all I can in that respect. I have dealt also with the point raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe as to choice of service. We shall do everything we can to facilitate that. I think I have now dealt with the principal points raised. If I have left anything out, I express my apologies.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that the hon. Member was not in the Chamber when I dealt with it. I think he will find, when he consults the record, that what I have said meets his wishes.

Mr. Silkin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about opportunities for promotion?

Mr. Morrison: It is a subject of discussion in a number of quarters, and there are two views about it. One view is that equality of payment gives a good democratic flavour. It is curious how these things come up now and again. In the days of years ago there was a certain gospel preached, and we were charged that we wanted to make everybody alike by paying them all the same. There are people now who think it is right to pay all those in the Civil Defence Services the same, whether officers or not, because there is a good democratic touch about so doing. They feel that it will spoil what I may call the "family-party" feeling and the social equality that there is in these Services if you introduce payment for rank. On the other hand, we pay for rank in the fire brigade and in the rescue service.
There are strong arguments in favour of payment for rank and to the man who is putting his best foot forward. I am sure that they all do so, of course, but you


can sometimes get your foot an inch or two more forward it you try very hard. A man may feel that if he gets greater responsibility he can get another shilling or two a week, and there is a lot to be said for it from the point of view of a career. There has been no decision about the matter. It is only a subject of discussion. I can assure hon. Members that I will consider the matter. There are various views about it, not only as between State Departments but as between Regions. All people do not take the same view on the point.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the cadet movement?

Mr. Morrison: I do not want to be too dogmatic about it, as there are various views. Some people feel reluctance about urging young people of 16 years of age to do this work, as it may be dangerous. On the other hand, there is the spirit of youth, and I do not want to damp it down. The Liverpool experiment has been exceedingly successful and very valuable. We have a problem about messengers, and youth would be exceedingly useful there. Therefore, we do not discourage it. However, I will think about the matter again.
In conclusion, I would say that my right hon. Friend and I are very grateful

Division No. 8.]
AYES.



Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hely Hutchinson, M. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dobbie, W
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Ammon, C. G.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hepworth, J.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Dunn, E.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, J. C.
Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Bellenger, F. J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Holdsworth, H.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Elliston, Captain G. S.
Hopkinson, A.


Benson, G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Horabin, T. L.


Bevan, A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Jagger, J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Foot, D. M.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir R. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Gibbins, J.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Brooke, H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Burke, W. A.
Gledhill, G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Butcher, H. W.
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Lathan, G.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Leslie, J. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Granville, E. L.
Levy, T.


Cary, R. A.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lewis, O.


Charleton, H. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lindsay, K. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Lipson, D. L.


Colman, N C. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Loftus, P. C.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mabane, W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hannah, l. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

to the House for the helpful and sympathetic way in which this Bill has been received. On both points—the provisions about conscientious objectors and the development of this great Civil Defence army—I think we, as British people, can be rather proud of the way in which we have handled these things. We have exercised degrees of tolerance and understanding which are all to the credit of the spirit of our people, and the development of this great Civil Defence force has been a great achievement. They have done great things, and they are already beloved of our people. They have not got the long traditions of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or of the police, but the Civil Defence army is an army of ordinary common-or-garden British people. There is no great military training or discipline behind them. They have had to stand up to great shocks, to great attacks, to terrible physical danger and the sight of dreadful things. I am proud to be at their head. In the name of the House and of the nation, I thank them all for what they have done. I believe that this Bill is another milestone in the development of that great force, and I ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill with speed and good wishes.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 4.

McCallum, Major D,
Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Rankin, Sir R.
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)
Summers, G. S


McKie, J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, H.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tate, Mavis C.


Magnay, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maitland, Sir A.
Richards, R.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Rickards, G. W.
Tinker, J. J.


Mander, G. le M.
Ridley, G.
Tomlinson, G.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J
Riley, B.
Touche, G. C.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Milner, Major J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S
Salt, E. W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Mort, D. L.
Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Nall, Sir J.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)
Westwood, J.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Owen, Major G.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Paling, W.
Silkin, L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Peake, O,
Silverman, S. S,
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Pearson, A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Woodburn, A.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Woolley, W. E.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.
Wragg, H.


Power, Sir J. C.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)



Pym, L. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.





Mr. Munro and Mr. Boulton.




NOES


Buchanan, G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES



Gallacher, W.
Sloan, A.
Mr. Maxton and Mr. McGovern.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. — [Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for calling up men for civil defence and to amend the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the first-mentioned Act."— (King's Recommendation signified.) — [Mr. Bevin.]
Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBT).

Resolution reported,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears

of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eye-mouth Harbour.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the under mentioned areas, namely:
(1)the County Borough of Bootle,
(2)the County Borough of Wallasey,
(3)the Borough of Bridlington,
(4)the City of Gloucester,
copies of which were presented to this House on 20th March, be approved." —[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Dugdale.]